Re: [CCAMP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 26/05/15 19:26, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> See below.
> 
> On 05/26/2015 10:10 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Just wondering: does this (or some other document) provide me
>> with a way to say that node X should take an input lambda and
>> replicate it out twice? 
> 
> RFC4875 allows this under signaled control. So nothing new is introduced
> by this document.

Thanks. That's all I was after - I really was just curious
and not trying to find a problem with this draft:-)

S.

> 
>> (I.e. forking the traffic) If so, then
>> that probably ought be noted somewhere as it'd enable forms of
>> monitoring that might otherwise require a visit to the physical
>> node.
>>
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this.  signaling allows one to automate
> what is already possible via other mechanisms, e.g., network management.
>  If the equipment requires a physical change to provision/split (aka
> drop and continue) a lambda, adding support for signaling doesn't change
> this.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
>