Hi Pete, This is an “inheritance” from GMPLS, where supporting a single priority equals not supporting priorities. If you don’t want to support priorities you don’t want your traffic to be preempted…hence priority 0.
>Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to >say anything about local configurations. For me it’s ok not to say anything on that. Thanks Daniele From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05 To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com> Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net>; gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext....@ietf.org; cc...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07 Hi Daniele, Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in section 4.1.1 on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest. On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). It's the end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local policy, SHALL be at priority level 0." What does that mean? [DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be priority 0. So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 01000000 or 00100000? If so, why is that? For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done. Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
