[CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01

Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CCF21F8805 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:22:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id datNfPiiNhZ3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (enficsets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1720621F87EB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:22:18 +0000
Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:22:35 +0000
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01
Thread-Index: Ac3Reshf51YHBUIBQieY75snZIR0TQ==
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:22:34 +0000
Message-ID: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804AF458017@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.18.71.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804AF458017ENFICSMBX1datco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 03 Dec 2012 17:22:37 -0000

Authors

I have a doubt about draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01, specifically about the SRLG collection.  Could you please let me know what you think?

According to section 4.1, the collection of SRLG information in RROs for the Resv is different to that for the Path.  This is unlike the existing processing of RROs, which are handled in the same way for the upstream and downstream directions (as defined in RFC3209 section 4.4.3).  Can you please explain why the collection of SRLGs must be different in the different directions?  My preference is that SRLG information collection in RROs is handled in the same way as existing RRO processing.

Regards

Alan Davey


Network Technologies
Metaswitch Networks

alan.davey@metaswitch.com<mailto:alan.davey@metaswitch.com>
+44 (0) 20 8366 1177
network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>