Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:28 AM
> To: John E Drake; Daniele Ceccarelli; Fatai Zhang; Matt Hartley (mhartley);
> CCAMP ([e-mail])
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-
> 03.txt
> 
> John:
> 
> BTW I can say the same for the PCEP only based solution you have been
> enforcing.

JD:  PCEP is a given.  You are insisting that it needs to be embedded within RSVP-TE and I am merely asking why that is either necessary or desirable.

> 
> You have been constantly ignoring everything said to force a PCEP only based
> solution, including requirements that there are existing and new deployment
> scenarios in which having a PCE is not a luxury (just to suite "your" solution).

JD:  As above, the only point of discussion is why you feel it is necessary to embed it within RSVP-TE signaling.  The draft says that this is necessary in environments where PCEP is not available.  Since you are, in fact, using PCEP this argument is clearly nonsensical.

> Some of this is just OAM and other cost considerations.
> I may detail more in a future response but really running out of stream and
> feel like I am hitting a brick wall.

JD:  As an exercise in character development, I will be kind and restrain myself from commenting.

> 
> N. b. Some of your objections are for solutions outlined in WG documents
> (e.g., metric and SRLG recording), for which WG has already spoken.

JD:  Just because they are WG documents does not mean they are inviolable.  Ill-advised technical solutions, such as TE metric recording, can be identified and corrected at any point in the process.  
  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards Š Zafar
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:55 AM
> To: zali <[e-mail]>, Daniele Ceccarelli
> <[e-mail]>, Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>,
> "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP]
> draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
> 
> >Zafar,
> >
> >Neither Daniele nor you has offered any reason, technical or otherwise,
> >why a PCEP adjacency across the UNI is not sufficient, or why embedding
> >PCEP within RSVP-TE is either necessary or desirable.
> >
> >I think the WG should decide, *not* the Market .
> >
> >Yours Irrespectively,
> >
> >John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:21 AM
> >> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Fatai Zhang; John E Drake; Matt Hartley
> >>(mhartley);  CCAMP ([e-mail])
> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP]
> >>draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-
> >> 03.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> >John and I are saying exactly the same thing. We don't disagree on
> >> >procedures, we only disagree on PCEP vs RSVP-TE
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have the same disagreement with John. We have a situation that we
> >>should  let the Market decide.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Regards...Zafar
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>