Return-Path: 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 8B90E21E80B5 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:00:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 hvwkddccWlDK for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F85121E80B9 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail16-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.234) by CO9EHSOBE030.bigfish.com (10.236.130.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:46 +0000 Received: from mail16-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail16-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4524E021D; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -20 X-BigFish: PS-20(zz9371Iec9Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzc2hz1de098h1033IL1de096h8275bh8275dh1de097hz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail16-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=ggrammel@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(37854004)(377454003)(47446002)(51856001)(83072001)(53806001)(65816001)(76786001)(69226001)(77982001)(74662001)(76576001)(81542001)(74876001)(49866001)(46102001)(50986001)(74502001)(54356001)(80022001)(4396001)(16406001)(83322001)(79102001)(47976001)(81686001)(19580395003)(74316001)(74706001)(1941001)(56776001)(59766001)(56816003)(33646001)(63696002)(76482001)(80976001)(54316002)(76796001)(74366001)(66066001)(31966008)(19580405001)(19580385001)(47736001)(77096001)(81342001)(81816001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB140; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:178.239.82.32; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Received: from mail16-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail16-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1376492445684762_2197; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.245]) by mail16-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DB63C006A; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CO9EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.236.130.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:42 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB140.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.205.23) by BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.347.3; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:36 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB140.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.205.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.731.16; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:35 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.216]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.216]) with mapi id 15.00.0731.000; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:35 +0000 From: Gert Grammel To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Daniele Ceccarelli , Fatai Zhang , John E Drake , "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac6UXh3OMYPEaNUmSzSE7m3SYlvx7wARnPhAACdi0mAAAR2OgACIaeoAAAUjVIAAIFYwgAAx2VuAAAtncIAAAZREAAABZHur Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:35 +0000 Message-ID: <6eea8117750e439ca87ecd608e416ccc@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48138D4D@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [178.239.82.32] x-forefront-prvs: 0938781D02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:00:54 -0000 Hi Zhafar, Daniele, If PCEP is not good enough to cover the cases you have in mind, it would be= worth to document those gaps. On the other hand, if PCEP is good enough, so why re-invent it in RSVP? A serious problem and applicability statement would be advantageous. -Gert ________________________________________ From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Zafar Al= i (zali) Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:20:42 PM To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Fatai Zhang; John E Drake; Matt Hartley (mhartley);= CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.= txt >John and I are saying exactly the same thing. We don't disagree on >procedures, we only disagree on PCEP vs RSVP-TE > I have the same disagreement with John. We have a situation that we should let the Market decide. Thanks Regards...Zafar _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp