1. George Swallow

2. Updated draft based on presentation in Stockholm Changed LSP-ID to have only one LSP-Num since this is sufficient to be unique within the context of the rest of the LSP-ID Added an IP format for LSP-MEG-IDs Added a stab at PW Maintenance Point IDs MEP-ID was removed from this draft based on some discussions in Stockholm – will be added back if there is consensus to do so

3. Accepted as a workgroup draft Draft has been republished as draft-ietf- mpls-tp-identifiers-00.txt

4. LSP-num – 16 bit identifier as in RFC3209 Unique within scope of tunnel LSP-ID formed as local{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID} +remote{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}::LSP-ID Canonical Format of LSP-ID lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first Compatible with GMPLS signaling

5. Tunnels MEG-ID = Tunnel-ID MEP-ID ::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num LSPs MEG-ID::=local{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}+ remote{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}::LSP-MEG-Num Canonical Format of LSP-ID lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first MEP-ID::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num::LSP-Num

6. +-------+ +-------+ | | | | | A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ T-PE1 S-PE2 S-PE3 T-PE4 The identification for the Pseudowire is: AGI = AGI1 Src-Global_ID = GID1 Src-Node_ID = T-PE1 Src-AC_ID = AII1 Dst-Global_ID = GID1 Dst-Node_ID = T-PE1 Dst-AC_ID = AII4 MEP_ID at point A = AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1. The MP_ID at point C = AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1::GID1:S-PE2. T-PE is acting as the segment endpoint, it too may use the MP_ID.

7. 1. We have two means of identifying operators. Need to define scope of applicability of each 2. Details on MEP and MIP identifiers are subject to ongoing discussions. 3. Based on some discussion in Stockholm, ITU style identifiers for MEPs and MIPs were removed from this version. However, consensus for this needs to be verified. 4. Pseudowire Maintenance Points need to be kept aligned with the model for Pseudowire maintenance. 5. Identifiers for P2MP entities 6. Tandem connection Identification - the identification should be exactly the same as any other MPLS-TP LSP. However, in the ACH TLV draft we could have a different TLV with the same format as an MPLS- TP LSP, if there are places where the distinction becomes important.

8. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that need global uniqueness Or should some limits exist on mixing and matching ITU and IP style IDs? Needs to be sorted for ACH-TLV draft Balance of presentation using SP-ID as placeholder without specifying which one(s)