Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Wed, 16 August 2006 22:38 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GDU1w-0003rp-7L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:38:32 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GDU1t-0002YW-SV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:38:32 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1GDTwG-0002Vd-I9 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:32:40 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.1
Received: from [62.23.212.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>) id 1GDTwF-0002VM-7F; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:32:39 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k7GMWao5022679; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:32:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <056c01c6be20$237b6c80$9b849ed9@your029b8cecfe>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OF8E2AA4DF.92D6A7CC-ONC12571CC.00648E2C-C12571CC.007BD4B6@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:32:35 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 08/17/2006 00:32:35, Serialize complete at 08/17/2006 00:32:35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
adrian - see in-line Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed in Montreal, we need to poll for a couple of new WG drafts. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-04.txt > has been updated by the authors to provide further details and > clarification. - ok - > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-02.txt - guess it is v03.txt ? - > has been updated since the version discussed in Montreal. i am ok in investigating the MP->CP but i have two concerns that imho should deserve more specific attention to maintain consistency wrt to CP->MP section 2.2: if control is lost for an LSP (during CP failure) how can it be possible transfer that LSP from the CP -> MP ? section 4.4: why the document assumes that both MUST be supported ? in part. concerning the CP->MP if one does implement current GMPLS signaling restart/recovery why shall this be mandated ? in brief, the document shall take into account existing mechanisms and prevent overlaps (with existing GMPLS mechanisms) hence, it is strongly suggested to identify conditions when such CP->MP is required (and not an alternative to existing CP mechanisms) b/f progressing that part > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-04.txt > has been updated as Zafar says in his previous email. informational imho - in its current version - not sure to understand why the PathErr/Notify can be processed by the head-end only (what about segment recovery and stitching case) - why only MBB is possible upon reception (pls use E2E recovery/Segment recovery capabilities as you address GMPLS networks) - compared to path-reopt, error description is identical for the TE link case which leads to the following point - if errors code/value are the same how to distinguish them (assuming that the query procedure described in path-reopt is used during the setup of that LSP) ? - comment is more for the path-reopt draft than yours but since there is an overlap ... it must be addressed in a way or another (note that when fully head-end driven operations look similar but there is a major difference role of timing and severity of the error code/value) - in case shutdown of a protected component link (of a bundle) is initiated why can't link protection be used ? > Please send yes or no for these I-Ds. > > Reasons and opinions are also welcomed. > > Thanks, > Adrian
- Polling for new WG I-Ds Adrian Farrel
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Richard Rabbat
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dan Li
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Wataru Imajuku
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Huub van Helvoort
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Diego Caviglia
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Trevor Wilson
- comments on ID-draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-l… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: comments on ID-draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vc… Trevor Wilson
- Re: comments on ID-draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dan Li
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Kenji Kumaki
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Tomohiro Otani
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Igor Bryskin
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Eric W Gray
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dean Cheng (dcheng)
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Tomohiro Otani
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Diego Caviglia
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Diego Caviglia
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds benjamin.niven-jenkins
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds Richard Rabbat
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Bryskin, Igor
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds Drake, John E
- RE: comments on ID-draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vc… Trevor Wilson
- New WG I-Ds Adrian Farrel