Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I agree with Gert.

It seems that the sentence ("The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of the signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the signaled LSP requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document.") implies that something is being standardized for one company's proprietary implementation.




Best Regards

Fatai

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:08 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

Hi Deborah,

I don't think we should progress this draft at this point. The WG decided that "operating without the PCE is still in the scope of this WG." .Yet the document doesn't look into this aspect: "The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of the signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the signaled LSP requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document."
How can the WG know that a network operated without a PCE is able to process the signaling and whether the proposed extensions are complete?

So before rushing into protocol extensions, it would be wise to focus on a framework or applicability statement carving out what needs to be added to existing work in IETF for the use case described. This would bring clarity as to whether route calculation and expansion can be performed and how.


Best

Gert


From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: 06 February 2014 21:06
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

All,

This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03.

This working group last call ends Feb. 20th. Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

Deborah and Lou