Subject: bug in draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-04

From: Markus Jork <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 14:12:08 -0500

Section 3 of the draft states that an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
is only applicable to RSVP Path messages.
But it also needs to go into PathTear messages so that they
can be routed correctly. And the ResvConf message also
needs the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object (if anybody cares about
ResvConf in the MPLS TE context).

I tried to research the status of this draft. The MPLS WG
meeting minutes say it's in IETF last call. Did I just miss
the announcement on the IETF list or hasn't the last call
been announced yet?

Markus

---

From: Markus Jork <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 15:17:12 -0500

>ResvConf in the MPLS TE context).

I might have been too quick calling this a bug. Thinking about
it some more, one can figure out where to forward the PathTear
by looking at the existing path state it refers to and take
the explicit route from there. Was this the intention of the spec?

Markus