[CCAMP] Request for comments: the next step about the draft draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03

zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Fri, 03 August 2012 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9E121F8D64 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.291
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.547, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-oojfYjkaHX for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B536A21F8D65 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 10723473195744; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:26:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [] by [] with StormMail ESMTP id 26282.4555706507; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:38:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q738c6X1000914; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:38:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 4C60DE0A:448BA6CC-48257A4F:000CAF72; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF4C60DE0A.448BA6CC-ON48257A4F.000CAF72-48257A4F.002F67E6@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:37:59 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-08-03 16:37:57, Serialize complete at 2012-08-03 16:37:57
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002F67E248257A4F_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q738c6X1000914
Cc: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com, ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] Request for comments: the next step about the draft draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:38:23 -0000

Hi Lou

Thanks you for your suggestion in the merging the solution into the 
existing WG documents to push this work forward. :)

IMHO, there are three potential WG documents, like

(1) draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt

This draft is now in IESG processing, which defines the extensions of the 
Association object, and is irrelevant with the specific association types.

(2) draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08

The proposed text can be added in section 3.2, a new TLV or the 
Association object with the defined new association type, which carring 
back the Z9_tunnel_num in the Resv message, needs to be defined there. 
This draft is WG last call, and I have sent out the corresponding 
comments, hope to hear the authors' opinion.


If the proposed texts are added in this draft, the subject needs to be 
enlarged to cover both the associated and corouted bidirectional LSPs. 

Maybe the first step is to determine which draft is the better choice for 
merging, then we will submit the proposed texts.

Any WG's feedbacks are welcome

Best regards