Subject: LMP Acronym question

From: "Dawkins, Spencer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:29:56 -0500

In draft-lang-mpls-lmp-01.txt, section 3.0 makes reference to TDM, LSC, and
FSC, without defining these terms. I found the definitions in
draft-ashwood-generalized-mpls-signaling-00.txt - could they be made
explicit in the LMP draft?

Spencer

---

From: Jonathan Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:15:27 -0700

Spencer,
  I think it makes more sense to keep the reference to the Generalized
signaling draft (draft-ashwood-generalized-mpls-signaling-00.txt) instead of
redefining the terms in the LMP draft.  The wording in Section 3 is really a
brief description of how the info learned from LMP is used in the context of
Generalized signaling.

-Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawkins, Spencer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 8:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: LMP Acronym question
> 
>

---

From: "Dawkins, Spencer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:47:55 -0500

I think this may be true, especially if the Generalized Signaling draft and
LMP end up as workgroup products in the same working group (understanding of
the plan for restructuring the Unified Control Plane work). I didn't realize
that these two (individual) submissions were sharing terminology, and then
happened to find the definitions in the Generalized Signaling draft.

Thanks,

Spencer

> From:	Jonathan Lang [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Monday, August 21, 2000 1:15 PM
> To:	'Dawkins, Spencer'; [email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: LMP Acronym question
> 
> Spencer,