RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt
"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Fri, 12 May 2006 09:23 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeTro-00056d-Cy for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 05:23:24 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeTrj-0007Tf-OB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 05:23:24 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1FeTfB-000BJ6-M1 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:10:21 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [128.87.251.114] (helo=smtpmast05.marconi.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>) id 1FeTf9-000BIf-Gt for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:10:19 +0000
Received: from cvdgwy02.uk.marconicomms.com (cvis27.uk.marconicomms.com [128.87.251.110]) by smtpmast05.marconi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4C9AAlf025391; Fri, 12 May 2006 10:10:10 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com)
Sensitivity:
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt
To: julien.meuric@francetelecom.com
Cc: "<adrian" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "<ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003
Message-ID: <OFFE1F2CCA.AB9D529B-ONC125716C.0031F36F-C125716C.00326BEC@uk.marconicomms.com>
From: Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:10:06 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY02/S/EXT/MC1(Release 5.0.13a |April 8, 2004) at 12/05/2006 10:10:12
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0cff8c3ec906d056784362c06f5f88c1
Hi Julien, as a Carrier representative do you think that from your prespective some ERO implementations are better than other? E.g. from a carrier prespective having the possibility to use explicit ERO with component link and label specification is nice_to_have, mandatory or useless? The above is just an example I'm not pushing a solution that include component link and label. Regards Diego "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com>@ops.ietf.org on 12/05/2006 10.49.21 Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Hi Adrian. Let me quote: " individual who, although (or perhaps because) he is a working group chair, cannot necessarily be trusted. Thus, the IETF process is open to an attack by this individual." I'm inclined to ask the following question: should the IETF stop allowing such attack, or should we modify the chair implementation so as to inhibit such behaviour? ;-) For the chair's sake, I'd rather change the receiving side to handle as many behaviours as possible, but I feel reducing sender's options will ease interoperability. As a result, I agree with your proposed actions, especially about making implementations converge on really required options. Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, Here are the results of the anonymous survey of ERO usage that was triggered by the Dallas discussion of the GMPLS Addressing I-D. I have drawn some preliminary conclusions and included my advice in section 5. Please have a look at the whole and make your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian PS If there is a bunch of other folk who suddenly feel the need to respond, I can always produce a revised I-D. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in > Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2006-5-11 > > During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of > addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized > Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there > was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the > Explicit Route Object (ERO). > > Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was > felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned > implementations. > > This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the > results. Some conclusions are also presented. > > This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were > collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >
- Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.t… Adrian Farrel
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.t… MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.t… Diego Caviglia
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.t… MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN