Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

["So, Ning" <[e-mail]>]

Yes/support.

 
Best regards,
 
Ning So
Network Evolution Planning
Verizon, Inc.
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Lou Berger
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 8:42 AM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on
makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Attila,
	So we have two points here:
1) WG procedure related

So this mail is in response to a poll. As your answer is (a).  I (as
chair) know how to interpret you position, i.e., "Yes/Support".

2) Point related to the contents of the draft.

As this is a technical point, and independent of the poll.  I'll start a
new thread on this in a separate mail.

Thanks,
Lou

On 4/14/2011 1:06 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
> Hi Lou, all,
> It would be nice to clarify the scope of the proposed extension. 
> I would say (a) if that does not include commitment to work on the
"single sided mode". To my current understanding that operation mode is
not required for associated bidirectional LSPs. There is no discussion
in the document about which operation mode is really needed, if I'm not
mistaken similar comments were raised in Beijing, but this is not
addressed in the document. Hence my confusion.
> Thanks,
> Attila
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:43 PM
> To: Attila Takacs
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making 
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> Attila,
> 	So I appreciate your comment, and would like to have this
discussion, but I think I need some clarification from the perspective
of the poll.
>  I'm unsure if you're saying:
> (a) support this document becoming a WG document and would like
>     discuss the point raised below in the context of a WG document or
> (b) do NOT support this document becoming a WG document until the
>     point you raise becomes a WG document
> 
> Can you clarify if you mean (a) or (b)?
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 4/12/2011 4:27 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
>> Hi authors,
>>
>> You talk about two provisioning models: "single" and "double" sided
modes. 
>>
>> Double sided is clear, it uses independent signaling for the two
LSPs. 
>>
>> Single sided, if I understood correctly, somehow binds the two LSP
signaling phases together. I have some doubts that this model is needed.
It seems to complicate operation and it also begs the question why not
use bidirectional LSPs instead. 
>>
>> I think two independently signaled LSPs with the addition of the
proposed Association object would do the job addressing the associated
bidirectional LSP requirements, so that transit nodes are also aware of
the binding.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Attila
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:24 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making
>> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
>>
>> All,
>>
>> This is to start a two week poll on making
>> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 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 April 15.
>>
>> Much thanks,
>> Lou (and Deborah)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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