Hi Joel,
Thanks for the comments.
> Major issues:
>As I read the document, status codes (and stauts TLVs) are for reporting
> on the status of LSPs. They are not for negotiating behaviors. Thus, I find
> it very strange that make-before-break behavior (section 8) is requested (by
> a dow
Hi Ben,
Sorry for the delay..
Substantive Comments:
-- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to
be a standard, then it would help to have an applicability
statement to that effect.
Good point, w
