On 09-07-2012 19:26, Guy Roberts wrote:
Hello All,
To help move along the debate on STPs, I have prepared the attached document which summarises the current state of discussions on STPs. Could you please take a look and send me your feedback by email or by Skype?
Hi, Attached are a couple of examples with what I think is slightly better syntax. In my opinion it eliminates some of the quirkiness of the current unidirectional/bidirectional constructs. Basically every endpoint is an STP, which can have a source, a sink or both. The result is that you can easily define bidirectional path requests, unidirectional path requests, multipoint-to-multipoint path requests, and point-to-multipoint path requests. I heard some critique about the query part in URNs. Hence, I put the VLAN specification in a XML subelement, and gave some example where it is included or not. I have no preference for either the vlans in the URN or in some other XML construct, but will ask Jeroen when he returns from holiday (he may have some more intelligent remarks than I do). It tries to be a bit generic about the label type, so it can be used for other labels than a VLAN, e.g. an I-SID. (One open question if we want to make it explicit that this is the C-VLAN ID, rather than the S-VLAN ID). Regards, Freek