Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
Lamberto Sterling <lamberto.sterling@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2011 12:19 UTC
Return-Path: <lamberto.sterling@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6181EE06B6 for <ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iby+sZebovPR for <ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C53E06E2 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so271424gxk.31 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=gwNLqnGK4KgQO0WOYh1VgmnitUpsmojdtRpNjyrNIS8=; b=jN9Iu9732IOz22CgkAJdMdkoMAu0l8kP7tDsXmXEMF0obztJ00K1yL6d1wTMqljLwn xnRvVuLfAFBr/dbNGj4+wk/yqdXPFPe3r/kg1SHbRUXDxYnosu8Ie/RquparZQSmJfot xtV/Lr12y+F1hP4TbN4eIICdeWnMrbkBrtKrg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=wx5SvGrJZ+VNM2wR2vqpVgDBSsCo7fj14gzc22BNHPqELui32xyMEWDKZpPKtY4i27 wf4+k7yNT0T+gpLi+5GIYj+JuK5L2qeJvZPS0hCMsbhjx9AOKOyGeBpRVfF6eO1jYJy6 4a0mhcPMf05zpg/XUSOgcWztViP5PNoTviUS8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.63.8 with SMTP id q8mr432790ybk.420.1302697194560; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.126.5 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:19:54 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTik5n1YUi9gTr=MNGBAFkSKJzyZ9xQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lamberto Sterling <lamberto.sterling@gmail.com>
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd590d8881cc804a0cbd354"
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:19:56 -0000
Hi Lou, Current content organization is fine for me. And I support this draft to be adopted. Lamberto > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> > To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn > Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:15:23 +0800 > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on > makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document > Hi all, > > Do you think that it should keep so much overlapped information (or crossed > information) in so many separate drafts for the homogeneous topic? > > I am not against anything, however, I just think the WG should discuss how > to organize the content about association stuff. > > I think it is the right time to discuss this issue(ie., content > organization), because these drafts are still WG documents or individual > drafts. > > I would like to see the feedback from the authors of these related drafts > and WG chairs. > > > Thanks > > Fatai > > Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. > Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang, > Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China > Tel: +86-755-28972912 > Fax: +86-755-28972935 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn > *To:* Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> > *Cc:* ccamp@ietf.org ; ccamp-bounces@ietf.org ; Lou Berger<lberger@labn.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] poll on > makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document > > > Hi Fatai > > There are some misunderstanding about the consensus on splitting the > document [draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01.txt] to be two parts: > (1)Usage of The RSVP Association Object > (2)RSVP Association Object Extensions > > one is "informational usage for GMPLS recovery", another one is for > "Standards track extensions for non-GMPLS recovery usage and Extended > association" > > So for the second parts, it is about the information model,currently two > documents related to it. > > one is *draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-resource-sharing-01* > > the other is draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 > > Furthermore, the recovery defined in RFC4872 and RFC4873 need to be > reconsidered in MPLS-TP; of course the association type is no need to be > redefined, but the extended association object should be used. > > Do you want to one doucment to merge all of these content, even for the > future extensions? > > Just my two cents, that is a useless suggestion. > > Anyway, we need to hear the opinions from the WG. > > Thanks > > Fei > > > *Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>* > 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > > 2011-04-13 10:02 > 收件人 > Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, ccamp@ietf.org > 抄送 > 主题 > Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 > a WG document > > > > > Hi all, > > This draft just introduces a new Association Type, so do we really need one > more separate draft for this simple thing? > > In Prague meeting, we know that there was a consensus on > [draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01.txt] to separate it into two drafts: > (1)Usage of The RSVP Association Object > (2)RSVP Association Object Extensions > > So, I think it is appropriate to address MPLS-TP bidirectional LSP > association in the draft (2), because we know that one of the key drivers > for Association Object Extensions in [draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01] is for > MPLS-TP. > > In this way, we can just keep two drafts for the association stuff (besides > RFC4872 and RFC4873), one is "informational usage for GMPLS recovery", > another one is for "Standards track extensions for non-GMPLS recovery usage > and Extended association". Another benefit of this approach is very easy > for the readers to track and review the RFCs. > > > > > Thanks > > Fatai > > Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. > Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang, > Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China > Tel: +86-755-28972912 > Fax: +86-755-28972935 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lou Berger" <*lberger@labn.net* <lberger@labn.net>> > To: <*ccamp@ietf.org* <ccamp@ietf.org>> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:24 PM > Subject: [CCAMP] poll on > makingdraft-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* <CCAMP@ietf.org> > > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp*<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 > >
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Lamberto Sterling