[CCAMP] Fwd: comment on compatibility sections of g709v3 drafts
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 08 August 2012 17:33 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 81DE721F8527 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 JzclQknpnqD0 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy9.bluehost.com (oproxy9.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 429B221F8653 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31588 invoked by uid 0); 8 Aug 2012 17:33:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy9.bluehost.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2012 17:33:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=kVjC2zy0kw9APT/m/Lbh3rTQPmNpENzPQ8Qt4Z5yVks=; b=rOnqvJ0iWw9dJN8+ZP6aCMWO5mjfBBFegtZIIXl5ZWxeLMvPlIIABY/3UGw/Diz6v1ij1ljg8/Z02n8La4QmoWkjO8wMzs1h/YzAdfRnaTc7F9WacSe9U4Og1rz5/Jq4;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:44778 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1SzA8h-0007EH-6Z for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:33:47 -0600
Message-ID: <5022A2F9.8050008@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:33:45 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: [CCAMP] Fwd: comment on compatibility sections of g709v3 drafts
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, 08 Aug 2012 17:33:49 -0000
All, It was pointed out to me, off list, that I had previously made a related comment: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13284.html I believe the (implied) question is why am I once again raising this topic. I though others may be interested in the answer. In the previous thread my objective was to clarify the intent of what was written and not change the technical solution, i.e., the comment was really editorial/process in nature and not technical. I think the revised text, which was published in May, is clear. Now that the text is clear and the full implications of the text are spelled out, I as a WG participant (not chair) am saying the documented *technical* approach is too complex and am proposing a simplification. In short, in this new thread I am proposing a new consensus technical position while the previous thread was only asking for clarification. Lou PS Please respond to the original message if you want to discuss the technical details of my proposal. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CCAMP] comment on compatibility sections of g709v3 drafts Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:29:44 -0400 From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org> Authors/All, I mentioned in Vancouver, the current "compatibility" text in the G.709-related framework, routing, and signaling WG drafts place more complex requirements on new implementations than is typical for CCAMP/GMPLS. With chair hat off, I'd like to propose the following approach: For routing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-02#section-6 1. Nodes supporting [ospf-g709v3] MAY support [RFC4328] 2. When nodes support both advertisement methods, implementations MUST support the configuration of which advertisement method is followed. The choice of which is used is based on policy and is out of scope of the document. 3. This enables nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes and compute paths using only the appropriate nodes. For signaling: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-03#section-9 4. Nodes supporting [signaling-g709v3] SHOULD support [ospf-g709v3]. 5. Nodes supporting [signaling-g709v3] MAY support [RFC4328] signaling. 6. A node supporting both sets of procedures is NOT REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator. 7. Ingress nodes that support both sets of procedures MAY select which set of procedures to follow based on routing information or local policy. 8. Include informative comment: Per [RFC3473], nodes that do don't support [signaling-g709v3] will generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication. Also, the background narrative really belongs in the framework draft. The framework will need to be reflected to match both changes once agreed to . See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-08#section-5.5 Comments? Also, I'm happy for the authors to wordsmith (once there is consensus) or can provide specific text proposals if needed. Lou (as WG participant) _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] comment on compatibility sections of g709… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Fwd: comment on compatibility sections of… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] comment on compatibility sections of … Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] comment on compatibility sections of … Lou Berger