Re: Draft minutes from Tove

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ugo,

Thanks for your comments.

> Hi Adrian and all,
> just some notes about the minutes from Tove:
>
>  > 11. Diverse Inter-region Setup - D'Achille - presented by Adrian (5 min)
>  >
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-
>  > 04.txt>
>  > -- Adrian not that familiar with this draft. Flags one slide on message
>  > exchange where the head end is in the center rather than at the end.
>
> In the presentation
>
(http://home.clara.net/olddog/61/draft-achille-diverse-inter-region-path-setup-01-v3.ppt)
> slide 3 the figure is actually correct because it illustrates the same
> node (head-end) on two sides of the source, to show how the ARO can be
> flipped to become the ERO.

Noted. In fact, my comment at the meeting was not to claim that there was an error in the
slide, but to draw people's attention to what was going on in the slide.

>  > 12. Related to 11.  Protection for Inter-AS tunnels - Decnodder - Cristel
>  > Pelsser
>  >
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-ccamp-interas-protectio
>  > n-00.txt>
>  > -- Differs from 11, addresses requirements from TEWG draft
>
> We want stress that ARO addresses requirements from the TEWG draft too

OK. This is a punctuation error in the minutes.

"-- Differs from 11, addresses requirements from TEWG draft"

should read

"-- Differs from 11
 --Addresses requirements from TEWG draft"

We will update the minutes.

> (draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-09.txt), in particular is in
> accordance with Section:
>
> 5.1.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE Operations and Interoperability
> 5.1.5.  Re-optimization
> 5.1.8. Scalability and Hierarchical LSP Support
> 5.1.11. Extensibility
> 6. Security Considerations
>
> This was also the basis on which we got some good feedback
> from the service provider community in the extensive discussions
> before, during, and after Seoul.
> May be we need to better point out this issue in the next version of the
> draft.
>
> Finally the phrase "need further feedback" looks not clear, who needs
> feedback? -the list or the authors ?-

Despite the fact that both drafts have been around for some while, the level of discussion
on the ccamp list has been quite low. I also have the impression that the interest in
implementation is not (yet) very strong. As the working group moves on to specify the
problem space that we are trying to resolve, I hope that we will see more debate about the
possible solutions with a view to arriving at a single set of protocol extensions.

Adrian