--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-07.txt	2006-02-05 00:41:56.000000000 +0100
+++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-08.txt	2006-02-05 00:41:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,26 +1,26 @@
 
 Network Working Group                                  D. Ooms, B. Sales
 Internet Draft                                                   Alcatel
-Expiration Date: July 2002                                     W. Livens
+Expiration Date: October 2002                                  W. Livens
                                                             Colt Telecom
                                                               A. Acharya
                                                                      IBM
                                                              F. Griffoul
                                                                  Ulticom
                                                                F. Ansari
                                                                Bell Labs
 
-                                                            January 2002
+                                                              April 2002
 
                    Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS
-                    draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-07.txt
+                       draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-08.txt
 
 Status of this Memo
 
    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
 
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts.
@@ -964,25 +964,26 @@
    can be maintained but the label advertisement is duplicated in space.
 
    Since LSPs are only rewarding if they have a long lifetime and since
    the number of LSRs on a shared link is limited the second approach
    seems advantageous.
 
    Another issue with multicast in multi-access networks is whether to
    use upstream or downstream label assignment.  For multicast traffic,
    upstream label allocation is simpler since there can be only one
    upstream node per link that belongs to a multicast tree.  This
-   (upstream) node can assign a label without any contention.  With
+   (upstream) node can assign a unique label for the FEC.  With
    downstream allocation, there may be multiple downstream nodes for a
-   given tree on a multi-access link; each node may propose a label
-   assignment leading to contention and a contention resolution scheme
-   is required to chose one of them as the label allocator.
+   given tree on a multi-access link; each node may propose a different
+   label assignment for a FEC which would require some resolution
+   process in order to come of with a single label per multicast FEC on
+   the link.
 
    Once a label has been assigned, it is possible that the label
    assigner leaves the tree.  With downstream label assignment, this
    could happen when the label allocator leaves the group.  With
    upstream assignment this could happen when the upstream LSR changes
    due to a unicast topology change.
 
 10. More issues
 
 10.1. TTL field
@@ -1106,20 +1107,26 @@
 
    a) Easier label allocation in multi-access networks (see section 9).
 
    b) The same label can be kept when the downstream LSR (which would
    have been the label allocator in downstream mode in a multi-access
    network) leaves the group (see section 9).
 
    c) The upstream and implicit distribution mode allow a faster LSP
    setup when the LSP is traffic triggered.
 
+   Whether to use upstream or downstream label distribution is outside
+   the scope of this framework. The relative complexity between the
+   necessary protocol extensions  and the resolution mechanism needed,
+   as well as the relative operational complexity, will influence which
+   way to go.
+
 10.5. Explicit vs. Implicit Label Distribution
 
    Beside the explicit distribution modes (which use a signaling
    protocol), [ACHA] proposes an implicit label distribution method by
    using unknown labels.  This method has all the advantages of the
    upstream label allocation method and is probably the fastest label
    advertisement method for traffic triggered LSPs.
 
    Implicit label distribution is not applicable if the FEC-to-label
    binding has been advertised prior to traffic arrival, e.g. explicit