Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 20 July 2014 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F2B1B2BF4 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HROm8bcaMSWP for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8B11B2BF3 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KCsEro023530; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:14 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3fb.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KCsChE023518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:13 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Iftekhar Hussain'" <IHussain@infinera.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:16 +0100
Message-ID: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac+kGXH6Y94TWY5qRO6+Mbd8d/ZgZw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20828.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.434-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.434-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: scwq2vQP8OE4HKI/yaqRm5YsKSXWWrsH1kqyrcMalqWsafcFLFlU1HG3 IDkkj7AX04ETjV9pxhvvvBX4k9Sv1zSeWUsjFFnmCPKPqEbU3ZOvFlDTfVnoWtUykPK1RFAoAQz qqP1wd4kjypnGhZoY9SU7PHkHmwcw6ouyw1YVSq++dJWHbg4ITmy2cg0DSaMwnWBUWlAKnBOJLk 17jMNaXT3fBuSFpmK+6woR/AxN3BgYGe03I+tEG54CIKY/Hg3AtOt1ofVlaoIc4jS1nsD4HfoLR 4+zsDTtY+LAcPqdSWfDv1ronYak5cAlkeF61lCKfRp4vylq4t/oPSyL9NYPma2BTGPyCw3B0MEP 74uTaDZ0DHHWbq+XBNfOEKezpsqtKZQ+KNzu5s+Hx/3593XRE+S+ZTuCPZ+tPifujgI13dqh071 fQj6NysC+ksT6a9fy
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8_vl_lQONUyq9UPS6ceqCsGpKSQ
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:54:26 -0000

> It is clear from your response that composite label portion is way beyond the
ITU
> data plane definition as of today. 

I'm sorry I have given you that impression. Sorrier still if the text in the I-D
leaves you with that impression.

It was my intention that this document defined a label that could be used for
the limited form of concatenated slot that is currently defined by the ITU-T.
It was also my intention that the document clearly and unequivocally states that
the label is not for any undefined (by the ITU-T) data plane constructs.
However, I wanted to ensure that the defined label is forward compatible.

> Do you still have reasons for keeping the composite label
> portion in the draft? If not please take it off the WG document.

Well, it is a WG I-D so my reason, as editor, is governed by what the WG wants.
I had formed the opinion, in the run up to WG adoption, that the WG supported
this idea. And before I posted the revised I-D, I circulated the text on the
list, received a couple of comments, and tweaked the text. I don't believe I
heard anyone objecting to the idea at that time.

Perhaps the chairs can help guide us to understand what the WG wants included in
the document.

Thanks,
Adrian