IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extensions? (Was: Re: Overlay model framework v2)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 23 January 2013 15:22 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 A06E521F841C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:22:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.658, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 xtfHdgx2XtLJ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 193ED21F841A for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8029 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jan 2013 15:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2013 15:22:04 -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=CcxFZeTBGs0PhAfvv1IBaloxDTzufK5o3GbCv7MXpro=; b=x/QcUyLxQhPZISO3XhF09vEs4BzfmTR91QegE6d0/vq3zLZV+SCo+Q1RBUTiDZIG+4F3iXVckUhg8HtMhkewmcOdR6l/Uyo/tKSlhoUyZ7QoJtWSQu7sMVh6pns+sQD5;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:39213 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Ty29M-0007tx-Lj; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:22:04 -0700
Message-ID: <51000024.8010700@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:22:12 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806C450@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50F985EC.1050704@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806E708@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50FDBD5B.6030307@labn.net> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915DC80@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <50FEB554.6010907@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B70806B@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50FEC37F.8090605@labn.net> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915ED91@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <13c634f0092.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915EE10@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915EE10@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extensions? (Was: Re: Overlay model framework v2)
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, 23 Jan 2013 15:22:33 -0000

On 1/22/2013 1:58 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
>...
> Besides, I believe nothing (terminology, architecture,  protocol
> solutions, etc.)  of MLN/MRN is relevant to what we are/were trying
> to achieve with ONTs.
> 
> Igor
> ...

Igor,

Can we take a step back for a moment from the (seemingly endless)
terminology/architecture/framework debate?

What additional (i.e., not already covered in a standalone draft, e.g.,
draft-ali-...) *protocol extensions* do you think need to be
standardized (as PS)?

Is it more than just MELG?

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email