[CCAMP] Request for WG adoption of draft-malis-ccamp-fast-lsps-01

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 24 March 2014 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BA51A02F2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tBFXs3uCzWTf for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90601A02C8 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k15so6149213qaq.29 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=ODNceSnLXd+j9KscDIkH/z8+PxO5oSN7TYoZHo6AfLA=; b=udwQI0Zs984OrVWxzaXa/Ix5anT3t/Z9GH5G1mWhr+aR8NeDI8z5mrgskxp5wnOZD4 CGe0WiZ0qrOOz4YYvCgWtQ359XQwYssuVLgOOe3XDc7nZv4V9IfZDrlGfHorbPT/AyDg WRmK6BfWqwUiha8eWBw0Nv0Nv0FmC1dacd+4xnhXeB/Hb2hv4u7zXCL31GVtTLs8Yi3x mR8fLU+ApqlGGmha00iOxU7MZy5PBZJ4f5abcVZMGjwSmvmoaFdsZuUbgHwGLL55npBT VNKW7C1Vz7cx51wFjS4JQllyWXH/HQI0q63/Lhx+o15gBOpRArGerKl++a1o5bwxMPkE uAjQ==
X-Received: by 10.224.87.193 with SMTP id x1mr11137000qal.70.1395697425857; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.205.69 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:43:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0uRpf5S7SiCVX1=k1SFi7FKDt=gczqKQiXkgx0Wy2f2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/bNKkBgjqi1_twsSkodN67Orwv24
Subject: [CCAMP] Request for WG adoption of draft-malis-ccamp-fast-lsps-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:43:50 -0000

We've had a bit of post-London discussion of
draft-malis-ccamp-fast-lsps-01 (see below), and the authors would now
like to request WG adoption of the draft to encourage further
discussions and reviews, and refinement of the requirements. Once the
WG has consensus on the requirements, we can then see if they can be
met using existing control plane mechanisms, or if protocol
enhancements are required.

Thanks,
Andy

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Getting to this and your comment at the mike, the text at the end of
> section 1 in the draft goes into some of the protocol-related problems
> that have been seen in simulations and prototyping, and we can
> certainly expand on that in subsequent revisions. Some things can be
> fixed by higher capacity or better implementations, but other things
> may need to be addressed from a protocol standpoint. As we progress
> this work, the things that fall into each category should become more
> clear.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Rajan,
>>
>> I think it means that the mechanisms of the control plane should not be the
>> gating factor.
>> Control plane implementations and data plane implementations being gates are a
>> matter between the network operator and the people who implement the equipment
>> that is deployed (i.e., bought).
>>
>> A
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rajan Rao
>>> Sent: 07 March 2014 13:16
>>> To: Andrew G. Malis; ccamp@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-malis-ccamp-fast-lsps-00.txt
>>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> My question during WG session was the following:
>>>
>>> What does it mean to have control plane requirements of  N-LSP setups/sec if
>>> data plane is not able to carry traffic end to end in the same amount of time?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Rajan