IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01

fu.xihua@zte.com.cn Tue, 05 July 2011 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <fu.xihua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BEB11E8088; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f+boVSp+-uy1; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C207111E8072; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 131322623888924; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:21:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 13796.5883294140; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:25:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p653Ox7X052164; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:24:59 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from fu.xihua@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4E127CA3.1060607@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFC4718716.DBEF5A8D-ON482578C4.0010E979-482578C4.0012C480@zte.com.cn>
From: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:24:59 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-07-05 11:24:59, Serialize complete at 2011-07-05 11:24:59
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0012C477482578C4_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p653Ox7X052164
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, MPLS WG List <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
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: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 03:25:50 -0000

Hi Lou, Ross

Thank you for your response.

Based on emails from you and my understanding, these works should be done 
in MPLS WG.
Yesterday night, we uploaded framework/requirement document to CCAMP/RTGWG 
and rsvp-te to CCAMP. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuxh-ccamp-delay-loss-te-framework-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuxh-rtgwg-delay-loss-te-framework-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuxh-ccamp-delay-loss-rsvp-te-ext-00
It doesn't means we are going to violate chairs' decision.
As you suggest, we will fix draft name having the word “MPLS” in the 
title and post to MPLS WG at a later date.
We will request time slots to present two documents for the upcoming 81st 
meeting.
So it is a good news for us to have complete solution of latency and loss 
TE application based on framework/requirement, 
draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path and rsvp-te document.

Xihua Fu



Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 
2011-07-05 上午 10:53

收件人
fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
抄送
Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, 
"mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, OSPF WG List 
<ospf@ietf.org>, Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
主题
Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01






For now, the framework/requirement and rsvp-te document should be
presented in MPLS.  Don't worry about the draft names as that can be
fixed at a later date.

Lou

On 7/4/2011 7:15 AM, fu.xihua@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
> Hi Lou
> 
> Would you like to inform us the decision?
> Tonight is the deadline for 00-draft uploading. If chairs decide this
> work should be posted to other WGs. So we will post them to a proper WG.
> Otherwise  we have to post framework/requirement and rsvp-te document to
> CCAMP. The work is related both packet (e.g., MPLS) and tdm (e.g., OTN)
> 
> Xihua
> 
> 
> *Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>*
> 
> 2011-06-30 下午 08:19
> 
> 
> 收件人
>                fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
> 抄送
>                Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>, Acee Lindem
> <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List
> <ospf@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" 
<mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
> 主题
>                Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] 
draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xihua,
>                 For at least now, the OSPF work should be done in the
> OSPF WG.  The
> chairs of the various candidate WG are having some off-line discussions
> on were the requirements/RSVP work belongs.  We should have an answer
> for you by early next week.
> 
> Lou
> 
> PS Please don't cc ccamp-bounces@ietf.org on mail you send, it makes the
> mail system think your mail is a bounce!
> 
> On 6/29/2011 9:44 PM, fu.xihua@zte.com.cn wrote:
>> I have a question to chairs and the authors. Because there are more and
>> more documents appearing, we should think about how to move forward
>> these work.
>> What's your opinion? 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email