Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-02 a WG document

Hi, 

This document was created because several documents are targeting LSP attributes to specific nodes, and a common solution based was seen usefull.
Several documents are targeting specific attributes at nodes
draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-05
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-04
draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-02
draft-margaria-ccamp-label-set-ero-00
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln

The next revision of the document will detail this.

Regarding the second point, the node adding the ERO, most likely the initiator, would need to know this information, but I do not see why it would be too much information. In the different use cases presented by the documents above the information is either a policy/management input or a constraints that are described as the minimum required (WSON). The documents make a good case why this information needs to be present.

This information may change between the time its determined and the times its signaled, but this is a general signaling problem, the same applies for explicit labels, we are not trying to solve this problem here.

Do you think the document should recommend some limitation on the number of attributes to include, or include new mechanism to address the fact that the attributes cannot be applied anymore (new Error codes?).

Do this clarify your questions?

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Cyril Margaria

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Eric Gray
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:13 PM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-
> ero-02 a WG document
> 
> Not support
> 
> (At least not at this time)
> 
> There are a couple of technical issues:
> 
> 1) I do not see any explanation of - or examples for - the use case
> where LSP attributes would apply to a hop in an LSP and not to the
> entire LSP.  If attributes apply to an entire LSP, than there are
> existing ways to do this. If it is possible to have an attribute that
> applies to a single hop in the LSP, does this not raise issues with
> "weak-links"?
> 
> 2) I strongly suspect that this approach MUST rely on information
> present at the signaling initiator that would be "too much information"
> about nodes and links in the LSP-path.  This information may change,
> even between the time that the path is determined (by whatever means)
> and the time that signaling is initiated.
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:48 PM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-
> 02 a WG document
> 
> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-margaria-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero-02 a ccamp working group
> document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical
> reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday December 21.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> PS We're still waiting on one IPR statement.
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp