RE: Liaison received from MFA
"MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 15 November 2006 15:36 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMoV-0003Le-N6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:36:35 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMif-0003Xv-Nt for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:30:35 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1GkMOo-000Nf6-7a for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:02 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (2006-10-03) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.6
Received: from [195.101.245.16] (helo=p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>) id 1GkMOm-000NeA-KJ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:01 +0000
Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:09:59 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Liaison received from MFA
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:09:54 +0100
Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026040B2092@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Liaison received from MFA
Thread-Index: AccIlMskPZaAR+rFRF21QNTWk3ZckAAED7fA
From: MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2006 15:09:59.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E156AF0:01C708C8]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Hi all. The MFA appears to focus on PSC using GMPLS procedures: I agree we should wonder whether this as a specific GMPLS profile or a removal of the Generalized aspect. Anyway, I think the answer we'll give them should include a pointer to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk. I'm not sure this is the place for detailled comments, but I had a quick look on the specification and here are my thoughts. - It seems their terminology is mixing MPLS/MPLS-TE/GMPLS, thus leading to the misused "GMPLS-TE" acronym. By the way, I don't think we mention any "GMPLS-TE capable interfaces" (p.6) in IETF. - The section 7.2 named "GMPLS Signaling Channel" only mentions that "labeled packets share the same access connection as the RSVP-TE signaling". However, RFC 3945 says: "the control channels [...] exist independently of the links they manage", thus requiring in case of POS interface, for instance, to have a specific channel -- like DCC bytes -- pre-existing to any STS-3/VC-4 (or OC-3n/STM-n) connection. Here again, I'm not so sure they're really doing *G*MPLS. As a result, I feel they're combining RFC 4208 and 4124, but they're also turning off the generalized aspects -- which I'm not very fond of: this is not GMPLS any more. Furthermore, I fear control and data plane separation is not properly understood in their document. This makes me think this is more an MPLS issue inspired by some "advanced" mechanisms from RFC 3473 and others. Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, CCAMP has received a liaison from the MFA. You can see this at http://www.olddog.co.uk/incoming.htm I'm not quite sure whether this should actually be handled by us or by the MPLS working group, so I will be discussing it with the MPLS chairs. All comments on this work gratefully received. We are called upon to respond by February. Adrian
- Liaison received from MFA Adrian Farrel
- RE: Liaison received from MFA MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN