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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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.

> (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