Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

"Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com> Fri, 31 January 2014 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <giomarti@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20711A0367 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:54:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STheo2EbLW4G for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12AF1A0280 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:54:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1565; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391183679; x=1392393279; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=UZGWqAs6uPzjiXeBzYMUTxFPfNQMqbqagyxfMnxSIUE=; b=YCxqSuq2EajWTtLlKfmKQFLR/Hw4PesZxg2ZX3kd5ygfBqQPjHVRsUC1 mpPTtidREZTDEW18erzJkfiGFrOKZ7b319EabZNv6CCOJEMhEXuFfkvx+ e4B9ytK5jRdc80zp0iXBfeaMFsEQCEwUfG98wkZoZweX4fW1RSUueVVll I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAGDG61KtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V704gQoWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIRicLJQEBBA4Fh30IDcxVEwSOLiEzB4MkgRQEmCqSIYFvgT6CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,758,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="17015162"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2014 15:54:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0VFscZt009825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:54:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:54:38 -0600
From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>
To: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
Thread-Index: Ac8dFEQ/74vW9cXqRHO9RfTaSljE2wBusRyA
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:54:37 +0000
Message-ID: <7D473FD6-D43A-4D6A-BED3-41BA254F6A87@cisco.com>
References: <005901cf1d14$69d2d550$3d787ff0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <005901cf1d14$69d2d550$3d787ff0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.254.172.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <49788566B581174399E346C1B6D3FC10@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:54:45 -0000

Hi Dan,

a comment from my side. Nothing precluding the draft to progress but having the m value in the label make me thinking.

I know there was lots of discussion in the past and likely the result is somewhat described section 4.2 however the use case I have in mind is when an established flex-lsp (hence a w/ flexgrid labels)  needs to be enlarged/shrinked. This operation implies a label value change. 

Now, does this consideration needs room in this draft /within framework /nowhere? I don’t have strong opinion just throwing a doubt on the table.

Cheers
G


On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:06, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi CCAMP'rs,
> 
> The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the only
> changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section as per
> RFC6982.
> 
> It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further
> technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been picked up
> by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work. 
> 
> We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the working
> group:
> 
> - Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft? 
> - Are you happy with the label format described? 
> - What do you think the next steps should be for this draft?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan (for the authors)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp