IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 13 April 2011 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CBFE073F for <ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xglaRKGzLbyx for <ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.21.11]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A2BAEE06FE for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1959 invoked by uid 0); 13 Apr 2011 12:43:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2011 12:43:09 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=g99b9fNLuipK8bopEac7N/XEXp1WpAs31BhmYARvIzrAFOTDH0yrPzA2if4dHZ1RGSoxyIjhDymRP8NKk3Es+Kh7B+FyOTvVtHprRlLiKFiHMSwQMeRn3eRZxuTEPyeV;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Q9zPZ-0005Cy-GF; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:43:09 -0600
Message-ID: <4DA59A59.2030108@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:43:05 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>
References: <4D9599CB.9030503@labn.net> <6477E10CC7D76444A479B9AC31F262A9DDD135B0@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <6477E10CC7D76444A479B9AC31F262A9DDD135B0@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:43:11 -0000

Attila,
	So I appreciate your comment, and would like to have this discussion,
but I think I need some clarification from the perspective of the poll.
 I'm unsure if you're saying:
(a) support this document becoming a WG document and would like
    discuss the point raised below in the context of a WG document
or
(b) do NOT support this document becoming a WG document until the
    point you raise becomes a WG document

Can you clarify if you mean (a) or (b)?

Lou

On 4/12/2011 4:27 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
> Hi authors,
> 
> You talk about two provisioning models: "single" and "double" sided modes. 
> 
> Double sided is clear, it uses independent signaling for the two LSPs. 
> 
> Single sided, if I understood correctly, somehow binds the two LSP signaling phases together. I have some doubts that this model is needed. It seems to complicate operation and it also begs the question why not use bidirectional LSPs instead. 
> 
> I think two independently signaled LSPs with the addition of the proposed Association object would do the job addressing the associated bidirectional LSP requirements, so that transit nodes are also aware of the binding.
> 
> Best regards,
> Attila 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:24 AM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday April 15.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email