We understand from your liaison that
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE
Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", is awaiting formal publication by
the RFC Editor, and that it is applicable to more than just the ASON
There are a few comments we have on identifiers and addressing for calls that
arise from reading draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt.
1. Call identifiers. Please note that G.7713.x series has a call identifier
format. For G.7713.2, this is described in RFC3474 and has RSVP class num of
2. Specifying the destination of a call in ASON is done with a UNI Transport
Resource identifier (G.8080 section 10.2). For G.7713.2, this is described in
RFC3476 as a Transport Network Address (TNA) and has RSVP class num of 229.
We suggest that an equivalent should be included in a future ASON
At the time of assignment, both of these class num values were in a range with
the semantics that â€œRSVP will silently ignore, but FORWARD an object with a
Class Number in this range that it does not understand.â€? Thus, usage of
these would not pose problems for RSVP instances that did not process calls.
Use of these objects has been successfully implemented in OIF interoperability
An electronic copy of this liaison statement is available at: