From: Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com>,
 ext Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] poll onmaking
 draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-02	a	WG document
Thread-Index: AQHN1rIKb0/2aBbtDUWDGtCcfOTXV5gRusgQ
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:03:30 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927326E8628@szxeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <50C25613.7030503@labn.net>
 <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF602DD02@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
 <D6D9DA614E7D604586EC52CCFCEDDA6BBE34AD@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <D6D9DA614E7D604586EC52CCFCEDDA6BBE34AD@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll
 onmaking	draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-02	a	WG document
Precedence: list

Yes/support.

As Cyril and Mach said, there are several use cases which indicate requirem=
ents for this function. And I'd like to encourage people to also review the=
se use case drafts and give comments.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: ext Eric Gray; ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero=
-02
> a WG document
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> This document was created because several documents are targeting LSP
> attributes to specific nodes, and a common solution based was seen useful=
l.
> Several documents are targeting specific attributes at nodes
> draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-05
> draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-04
> draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-02
> draft-margaria-ccamp-label-set-ero-00
> draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln
>=20
> The next revision of the document will detail this.
>=20
> Regarding the second point, the node adding the ERO, most likely the init=
iator,
> would need to know this information, but I do not see why it would be too
> much information. In the different use cases presented by the documents a=
bove
> the information is either a policy/management input or a constraints that=
 are
> described as the minimum required (WSON). The documents make a good case
> why this information needs to be present.
>=20
> This information may change between the time its determined and the times=
 its
> signaled, but this is a general signaling problem, the same applies for e=
xplicit
> labels, we are not trying to solve this problem here.
>=20
> Do you think the document should recommend some limitation on the number
> of attributes to include, or include new mechanism to address the fact th=
at the
> attributes cannot be applied anymore (new Error codes?).
>=20
> Do this clarify your questions?
>=20
>=20
> Best regards / Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen
> Cyril Margaria
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of ext Eric Gray
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:13 PM
> > To: ccamp@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-
> > ero-02 a WG document
> >
> > Not support
> >
> > (At least not at this time)
> >
> > There are a couple of technical issues:
> >
> > 1) I do not see any explanation of - or examples for - the use case
> > where LSP attributes would apply to a hop in an LSP and not to the
> > entire LSP.  If attributes apply to an entire LSP, than there are
> > existing ways to do this. If it is possible to have an attribute that
> > applies to a single hop in the LSP, does this not raise issues with
> > "weak-links"?
> >
> > 2) I strongly suspect that this approach MUST rely on information
> > present at the signaling initiator that would be "too much information"
> > about nodes and links in the LSP-path.  This information may change,
> > even between the time that the path is determined (by whatever means)
> > and the time that signaling is initiated.
> >
> > --
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Lou Berger
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:48 PM
> > To: ccamp@ietf.org
> > Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-
> > 02 a WG document
> >
> > All,
> >
> > This is to start a two week poll on making
> > draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-02 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 December 21.
> >
> > Much thanks,
> > Lou (and Deborah)
> >
> > PS We're still waiting on one IPR statement.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp