Hi Jonathan, On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Jonathan Sadler wrote: > Please consider the following comments on these drafts: > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt > draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt > Many of the comments are based on implementation experience. These comments are > marked with a (*). > > Jonathan Sadler > > ========== > > 1. In section 4.4.2 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, the operations for > Packet Switch Capable (PSC) are defined. Reference is made to Minimum LSP bandwidth > for SDH encoding. None of the examples in section 5 of > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt show how this field should filled. Is the suggestion that Min LSP bw be removed for PSC? > 2. The mechanism for showing relationships between server and client layers is not > generalized*. Specifically: I've incorporated most of Stephen Shew's text on layer relations almost as is. Most of the specific comments you have should really be addressed (IMO) to a document on routing for SONET/SDH (such as draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-isis[ospf]-00.txt). Please review the new text, and let us know if there are issues to be addressed by *this* document. > 3. Layer specific attributes are not supported*. Specifically: > - It is not possible to have a link with different costs at > different layers (ex. VC-11, VC-4, VC4-4c). ... > - Many attributes discussed actually refer to a specific layer*. ... > - Combining layer specific attributes with layer relationships can > provide a more efficient encoding mechanism than requiring > separate link announcements per layer*. ... > 4. The "TDM" Interface Switching Capability presumably includes > layers other than SONET/SDH, such as PDH* (DS1, DS3, E1, E3) and > G.709. The interaction with these layers needs to be defined. ... > 5. In many cases, 8 levels of priority are not necessary*. A more > compact encoding that has a bitfield stating the priority levels > being announced would reduce the size of the announcement. Do you have specific text that you think falls under the realm of the overall functional spec (as opposed to layer-specific docs)? Thanks, Kireeti.