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

Attila,
	So we have two points here:
1) WG procedure related

So this mail is in response to a poll. As your answer is (a).  I (as
chair) know how to interpret you position, i.e., "Yes/Support".

2) Point related to the contents of the draft.

As this is a technical point, and independent of the poll.  I'll start a
new thread on this in a separate mail.

Thanks,
Lou

On 4/14/2011 1:06 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
> Hi Lou, all,
> It would be nice to clarify the scope of the proposed extension. 
> I would say (a) if that does not include commitment to work on the "single sided mode". To my current understanding that operation mode is not required for associated bidirectional LSPs. There is no discussion in the document about which operation mode is really needed, if I'm not mistaken similar comments were raised in Beijing, but this is not addressed in the document. Hence my confusion.
> Thanks,
> Attila
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:43 PM
> To: Attila Takacs
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 