Re: Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-

Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@juniper.net> Thu, 20 January 2005 20:05 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00047 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:05:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Criog-0000Ob-Pp for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:22:08 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.43 (FreeBSD)) id 1CriL6-0008cx-Lq for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:51:32 +0000
Received: from [207.17.137.57] (helo=colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43 (FreeBSD)) id 1CriL5-0008cg-Je for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:51:31 +0000
Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id j0KJpT936004; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arthi@juniper.net)
Received: from zircon.juniper.net (zircon.juniper.net [172.17.28.113]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id j0KJpNe64640; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arthi@juniper.net)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:23 -0800
From: Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@juniper.net>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-
In-Reply-To: <016d01c4f356$37fef7d0$d39c9ed9@Puppy>
Message-ID: <20050120114037.W79700@zircon.juniper.net>
References: <011d01c4f2a9$1ff63340$d39c9ed9@Puppy> <20050105101515.O46604@kummer.juniper.net> <016d01c4f356$37fef7d0$d39c9ed9@Puppy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17

Adrian, all,

Just a few comments on this draft.

Section 2 and elsewhere: there are repeated statements & notes as to "CSPF
or any other PCE-based path computation method"
--> I don't think it is relevant to this document whether the path
computation is local or remote or done by a PCE or not. IMO, it would be
enough to just say "path computation".

Paragraph 4 in Section 3, Section 4.2, and 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in 5.3.2
----> This draft not only refers to another draft (and it is *not* a
normative reference) draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt, but
also seems to introduce error codes and subcodes (subcode 7 & 8) which are
actually relevant to GR-SHUTDOWN draft rather than this document. IMO, if
graceful-shutdown procedures need new error codes/subcodes, they must be
introduced in the graceful-shutdown draft and not in this re-optimization
draft. Otherwise, what is the point of having the other draft if the
codes are being standardized here ?

thanks,
-arthi

So the
> This email starts a two week last call on
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-00.txt
>
> Please send your comments to the list or to the chairs by noon GMT on 20th
> January 2005.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian and Kireeti
>
>