RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Wed, 11 August 2004 19:07 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28642 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:07:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BuyWb-0005gN-1h for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:12:38 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1BuyF7-000D6J-Oo for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:54:33 +0000
Received: from [62.23.212.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1BuyEw-000D51-W7 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:54:23 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id i7BIs9Zu016488; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:54:09 +0200
To: Richard Rabbat <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, 'Kireeti Kompella' <kireeti@juniper.net>, 'Tove Madsen' <Tove.Madsen@acreo.se>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Subject: RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:54:08 +0200
Message-ID: <OFEE5A2357.8D26C13F-ONC1256EED.0067D55A-C1256EED.0067D58F@netfr.alcatel.fr>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 08/11/2004 20:54:09
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Alcanet-MTA-scanned-and-authorized: yes
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.64
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
hi richard, all, - see in-line >> 1. Loose Path Re-optimization >> draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt >> This draft is stable and has an implementation. >> The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain >> signaling, but could also be used within a domain. The >> meeting in San Diego reported relatively few as having read >> the draft, but no objection to it becoming a WG draft. > > Yes. Though I would like the authors to mention GMPLS and drop the focus on > MPLS since they say in the abstract that this applies to "packet and > non-packet TE LSPs". agree, i don't know if this has already being pointed out but the statement could even become somehow confusing to the audience, so it requires to explicitly state [RFC 3209] and [RFC 3473] for packet LSPs (as GMPLS support by definition PSC LSPs) now concerning non-PSC LSPs, there is also a point to be addressed that in order to achieve non-disruptive re-optimization using MBB one would require double counting as a parallel non-PSC LSP would be required (traffic is then send over both LSP before tearing the old one) >> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP >> draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt >> There has been a bit of off-list discussion about this draft >> in which it has become clear that there are definite >> differences between the ASON and CCAMP uses and views of LMP. >> This is precisely what the draft is intended to expose. That >> is, the draft is not intended to unify the views of LMP, but >> rather to represent the two views within a single document so >> as to highlight the differences. In San Diego, no-one raised >> objections to this being a WG draft. > > Not sure. Adrian mentioned that this would possibly identify items of work > for ITU and IETF. What is the thinking of the authors about the draft after > the protocol modifications are finished? > > If the expected outcome is an alignment of the IETF and ITU views on LMP, > then the draft would have served its purpose and would not need publication > as Informational. your question is sensible, the reason is that in order to exchange views we need first to agree 1) that we want to work on it then 2) that we are in agreement about these views (you will also find part of the response to your in section 6.4) and finally 3) that we are in agreement on how to progress the work [snip]
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… zafar ali
- Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status Adrian Farrel
- RE : Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG s… LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Igor Bryskin
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… dimitri papadimitriou
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… zafar ali
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Don Fedyk
- LMP transport [Was: Re: Soliciting comments on mo… Adrian Farrel
- RE: LMP transport [Was: Re: Soliciting comments o… zafar ali
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Jean Philippe Vasseur
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… dimitri papadimitriou
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Richard Rabbat
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… John Drake
- Re-opt [Was: Re: Soliciting comments on moving dr… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Richard Rabbat
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Greg Bernstein
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Don Fedyk
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Jean Philippe Vasseur
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Don Fedyk
- Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… dimitri papadimitriou
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Richard Rabbat
- RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG st… Richard Rabbat