IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 31 July 2013 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 4564921F9263 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.774
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.469, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxVapeveQYod for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy5.bluehost.com (oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CBDB21F860A for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29575 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jul 2013 09:47:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy5.bluehost.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2013 09:47:35 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Cc:To:Subject:From; bh=KH4KscYtNRSlUo3WoavSDUr9Mm70ha/QUTjo0rblDxc=; b=CEepYpEXl1rttuhbT/zLSBf1uQTzBg8vuIl/YoGzs4purwmqpkEhP3ZlvfK3v0Z9ZA218SAAo+FbFEUwQsckVX+FqXqUh2bAbBcuwM52/boCRuA+/h06nHxvUko2U3m4;
Received: from [69.89.31.113] (port=35493 helo=localhost) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1V4T0J-0001RE-3B; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:47:35 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <6700accc.1375182901959@mail.labn.net>
Message-ID: <d9a58005.1375263848192@mail.labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:46:28 +0200
User-Agent: ProfiMailGo/4.10.00
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:48:12 -0000

Adrian,

I think we're all in agreement on this. 

 The 709 document should be fixed as part of addressing your review comments.

Thanks,
Lou

On 11:03am, July 31, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Lou,
> 
> I think that is fine. 
> 
> This draft should give some weight to IS-IS (at least mention it :-) along with
> OSPF.
> 
> I am not requiring the WG to produce IS-IS solution drafts. The only requirement
> there is to facilitate IS-IS solutions drafts if people want to write them and
> intend to implement in code.
> 
> A
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> > Sent: 30 July 2013 12:31
> > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-
> > 09.txt
> > 
> > Hi Adrian,
> > 
> > So IS-IS is certainly still a viable GMPLS routing protocol and it should be
> > mentioned in the draft as a possibility. Good catch.
> > 
> > The more general issue with GMPLS IS-IS, from my perspective, is that there
> > hasn't been much interest in working on related drafts in the WG. GMPLS IS-IS
> > remains in scope, but drafts aren't being written.  I take this as the market
> > "speaking".
> > 
> > Lou
> > 
> > On 10:29am, July 28, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > > Hi CCAMP,
> > > 
> > > I am currently reviewing draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt
> > (cunningly
> > > deceptive file name ;-)
> > > 
> > > I have a question...
> > > 
> > > The document makes reference to RFC 4202 and RFC 4203, but not to RFC 5307
> > > (obsoleted RFC 4205). Can I ask why CCAMP no longer considers IS-IS to be a
> > > potential routing protocol for GMPLS systems?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Adrian
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email