Re: [CCAMP] Request for comments: the next step about the draft draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Fei,
	My request was a bit more specific.  The request was/is for the authors
to propose, on the list, text that would merge support for the function
discussed in the draft (and agreed to on the list) into
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp.  The WG could then
react to this proposal and agree/disagree to the proposed merge.

Lou

On 8/3/2012 4:37 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Lou
> 
> Thanks you for your suggestion in the merging the solution into the
> existing WG documents to push this work forward. :)
> 
> IMHO, there are three potential WG documents, like
> 
> (1) draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt>
> 
> This draft is now in IESG processing, which defines the extensions of
> the Association object, and is irrelevant with the specific association
> types.
> 
> (2) draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08>
> 
> The proposed text can be added in section 3.2, a new TLV or the
> Association object with the defined new association type, which carring
> back the Z9_tunnel_num in the Resv message, needs to be defined there.
> This draft is WG last call, and I have sent out the corresponding
> comments, hope to hear the authors' opinion.
> 
> (3) draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp/>
>  
> 
> If the proposed texts are added in this draft, the subject needs to be
> enlarged to cover both the associated and corouted bidirectional LSPs.
> 
> Maybe the first step is to determine which draft is the better choice
> for merging, then we will submit the proposed texts.
> 
> Any WG's feedbacks are welcome
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Fei