Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 21 December 2011 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 E49F321F8ACA for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:10:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -93.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-93.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.530, BAYES_20=-0.74, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dLYT07mLFgof for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4478A21F8ABE for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8629 invoked by uid 0); 21 Dec 2011 13:10:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2011 13:10:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=w0ImaIdz1PCUUUAKmP5d5I7GDV+VkEpu1fFWh5uhWGs=; b=JxL5uS6++FCrbw2/VU5qhWBcirvPP3wXoGlJ2ttz0flZ0GR3bCIAcEFhHyvrLhFDimtWGHxy5Lqrrxl5o7nT1fmsdHPuCOyN53pUIKn85kEykZhbGGRV5bWybv9TX6bq;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1RdLw8-0004Cv-Ot; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:10:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4EF1DAC1.3020606@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:10:25 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4EDE3E19.6010303@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18AB@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EF0A18F.4080000@orange.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517AFD@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819BA8E25@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517B62@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2B010A0998FB37@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net> <4EF0B788.7020700@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517BE2@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0C99B.4020505@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517E4F@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0EE83.3060601@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B518072@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF11904.30708@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B5182B1@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B5182B1@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFI6ICBPU1BGIE9UTiBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9u?= =?gb2312?b?cyBwb3N0IElFVEYgODIgKElzc3VlIDEvMik=?=
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, 21 Dec 2011 13:10:47 -0000

John,
	I'm a little at a loss as to what you are looking for / arguing about
at the moment.  I've already said that (a) that I think we should
"table[ing] discussion on my [OTN] proposal" and (b) I (with others)
will submit an individual draft on the general issue.

You've stated that (b) serves no purpose nor contains any technical
content.  Given that the draft doesn't exist at the moment, I guess your
statement is technically correct at this time. Once the draft is
submitted, I'll be happy to resume this argument based on the actual
content of the draft.

Lou

On 12/20/2011 7:17 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> See below for specific responses (as a WG participant).
>> > 
>>> > > How does the existence of this draft, which will have no new
>>> > > information, help the chairs gauge rough consensus on this issue in
>>> > > the WG,
>> > 
>> > It depends on which issue you are talking about.  If talking about the
>> > general issue as discussed above, I hope it will close it for the
>> > future.
>> > 
>> > If talking about my (individual, not chair) proposal of using multiple
>> > SC types for OTNv3, I don't think it immediately does.  What it will do
>> > is provide context for that proposal.  In the interim, I recommend (as
>> > a
>> > WG participant, not chair) tabling discussion on my proposal until we
>> > know which way the general issue is resolved.
> [JD]  The only issue is your specific proposal.  
>