IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 30 July 2013 11:32 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 161B211E80F7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.763, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 9E5mfRzUARE2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AEB821F9E3F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25516 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 2013 11:32:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2013 11:32:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Cc:To:Subject:From; bh=/kCKrR9tBKOm4Bw2/0pRjbePXIQnSFBFtNQ7lY5lODs=; b=acur8u3xvX0HHzHHLFo7OnIgr7okGXK9W9wPQk4zYgYMfkcqyalXrOEWxkFKYURVMbfp8Hys00R/c1F2EjDBI9UB/KqNaY0L78nf4wsCjDM8YsX7GJWPQ6YgxLCHM9op;
Received: from [69.89.31.113] (port=34696 helo=localhost) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1V489p-0006FV-3L; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:32:01 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Message-ID: <6700accc.1375182901959@mail.labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:31:09 +0200
User-Agent: ProfiMailGo/4.10.00
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt
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, 30 Jul 2013 11:32:37 -0000

Hi Adrian,

So IS-IS is certainly still a viable GMPLS routing protocol and it should be mentioned in the draft as a possibility. Good catch.  

The more general issue with GMPLS IS-IS, from my perspective, is that there hasn't been much interest in working on related drafts in the WG. GMPLS IS-IS remains in scope, but drafts aren't being written.  I take this as the market "speaking".

Lou

On 10:29am, July 28, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi CCAMP,
> 
> I am currently reviewing draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt (cunningly
> deceptive file name ;-)
> 
> I have a question...
> 
> The document makes reference to RFC 4202 and RFC 4203, but not to RFC 5307
> (obsoleted RFC 4205). Can I ask why CCAMP no longer considers IS-IS to be a
> potential routing protocol for GMPLS systems?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email