Subject: Group IDs in draft-pwe3-control-protocol-11.txt

From: Nick Weeds <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:11:00 +0100

Luca,

A question on draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-11.txt:

Suppose we have PWs with the same group id but a mix of PWid and Generalized
ID FECs - for example the PWid PWs have group id 1 and the Generalised ID
PWs have PW Grouping id 1.

Are these PWs considered to belong to the same group or to two distinct
groups?
Would a wildcard Label Withdraw with PWid FEC and group id 1 withdraw all
these PWs (including Generalized ID ones) or just the PWid PWs?

- Sections 5.1 and 5.2.2 describe the PWid group id and the PW Grouping ID
as essentially the same, but use different terms, so it is unclear whether
they refer to the same group or distinct groups.

- Page 22 paragraph 1 (in section 5.3.2) might suggest that they are the
same group, and a single Notification message applies to both PWid and
Generalized ID FECs, but that might be reading too much into it.

- Section 6.3 can be read either way.

Clarification of this would certainly help implementation and probably
inter-operability too.

	Nick.

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:58:01 -0600

>Are these PWs considered to belong to the same group or to two distinct
Two distinct groups as it's 2 distinct FEC types.

>these PWs (including Generalized ID ones) or just the PWid PWs?
Since you have to send a FEC type , I would say that it withdraws only 
the PW for the FEC you sent.

>they refer to the same group or distinct groups.
Since one is a TLV , and the other one is embedded with the FEC I take 
them to be different. ( even the name is different ;-) )

>Generalized ID FECs, but that might be reading too much into it.
ok, I found an unwanted reference to appendix B, which was removed ...
I also found the following text :
" As mentioned above the Group ID field of the PWid FEC element, or the
   PW Grouping ID TLV used with the Generalized ID FEC element, can be
   used to send a status notification for all arbitrary sets of PWs."

This does NOT mean that the Group ID and the Grouping ID are the same space.
( they refer 2 two different FECs ).
I meant to say that they have similar functionality for their respective 
applications ( FECs ).

>Clarification of this would certainly help implementation and probably
Yes I see, another bug in the text. I'll fix the grammar to be more clear.

Thanks.
Luca

>	Nick.
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>  
>