Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi Lou, John

As an editor of this draft, be apologized that I am not familar with the 
WG consensus procedures and even do not read RFC2418. It is my fault and 
will not happen again.

Best regards

Fei



Lou Berger <[e-mail]> 
发件人:  [e-mail]
2012-08-17 06:08

收件人
John E Drake <[e-mail]>
抄送
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
主题
Re: [CCAMP]     I-D     Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt






John,
                 While strictly speaking WG drafts should only reflect 
current WG
consensus, and it is the WG draft editor's job to ensure this, in
practice authors/editors are given a lot of latitude in timing /
ordering in introduction to changes.  I personally think this is a
practical way of keeping the process moving.  Also if the WG disagrees
with a change, it can always be backed out.

So, yes, the WG could do exactly as you say if it comes to it.  (The
chairs can even appoint different editor if needed, e.g., to make this
happen.)  While I'm not happy with how this revision came about, as I
covered in earlier mail, my feeling is to let the discussion take place
on the list (and at the next IETF, if needed) and then have the draft
updated to reflect the WG discussion/consensus.

Lou

On 8/16/2012 5:35 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> Lou,
> 
> Since the WG did not agree to this changes, let alone discuss them,
> would it be possible to simply rollback these changes and ask the
> authors to write a draft addressing the topics you list in your
> email, below?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:10 PM
>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-
>> associated-lsp-04.txt
>>
>> Rakesh,
>>               Such major changes (in scope and functionality) to WG 
drafts are
>> usually discussed with the WG prior to the authors/editors just
>> publishing the changes.  But, this is a judgment call by the document
>> editors in how, quoting rfc2418, they "ensur[e] that the contents of
>> the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by
>> the working group."
>>
>> So let's jump into discussing the changes.
>>
>> As I see it this draft introduces several major functional changes that
>> have not been discussed by the WG.  Correct me if I get them wrong, but
>> I believe they include:
>> 1) Introduction of a second method for signaling Co-routed LSPs
>> 2) Support for FRR bypass tunnels for piggybacked on the TP
>> bidirectional LSP mechanisms.
>>
>>    There are also other changes, but I'll defer discussing them
>>    until the discussion on the above is concluded.
>>
>> Is this correct?
>>
>> Assuming yes, I have questions about both rational and specific
>> mechanisms.  For now let's look at the former, so please:
>>
>> A) Articulate the issues/limitations with using the RFC3473 defined
>> mechanisms for (co-routed) bidirectional LSPs that you'd like to see
>> addressed.
>>
>> B.1) Articulate the FRR/GMPLS-related issue you'd like to address?
>>
>> B.2) Articulate why this issue should be solved in a TP-specific and
>> not GMPLS generic fashion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 4:26 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Please advise if you think detailed email is required.
>>> We believe latest draft summarizes the changes well and we could
>> start review/discussions from there.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:00 PM
>>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action:
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>>
>>> Rakesh,
>>>              Is this the start of the thread that I requested in
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13729.html
>>>
>>> In particular, is it the response to:
>>>> I'd like to ask that someone (Rakesh, Fei, etc.) review each of the
>>>> proposed change and the rational for each change (in one or in
>>>> separate e-mails). The WG discussion can then really begin on the
>>>> proposed changes. (Which are quite substantial both in scope and
>>>> implication.)
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> On 8/16/2012 3:19 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> We have uploaded a new version of this draft with following changes:
>>>
>>> 1.  Added a section on Signaling of Co-routed LSPs
>>>
>>> 2.  Added clarification on Signaling of Associated Bidirectional
>>> Protection LSPs
>>>
>>> 3.  Added a section on Signaling of Auto-tunnel Mesh-group LSPs
>>>
>>> 4.   Added clarification on Signaling of Inter-domain Associated
>> Bidirectional LSPs
>>>
>>> 5.  The Extended ASSOCIATION object format with Association Type
>> "Associated Bidirectional LSP". Clarified on how to populate different
>> fields in this object.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We believe that some of these changes were necessary to avoid the
>> interoperability issues due to potentially different interpretations.
>>>>
>>>> Your review comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rakesh
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>> Behalf Of [e-mail]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:53 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action:
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement
>> Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>             Title           : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated 
Bidirectional
>> LSPs
>>>>             Author(s)       : Fei Zhang
>>>>                           Ruiquan Jing
>>>>                           Rakesh Gandhi
>>>>             Filename        : 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-
>> lsp-04.txt
>>>>             Pages           : 17
>>>>             Date            : 2012-08-15
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document
>> [RFC5654],
>>>>    describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional
>> point-
>>>>    to-point LSPs.
>>>>
>>>>    This document provides a method to bind two unidirectional Label
>>>>    Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP.  The
>>>>    association is achieved by defining the new Association Type in
>> the
>>>>    Extended ASSOCIATION object.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-
>> ext-
>>>> a
>>>> ssociated-lsp
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-
>> associ
>>>> a
>>>> ted-lsp-04
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-
>> ext-
>>>> a
>>>> ssociated-lsp-04
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp