Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <> Sat, 08 February 2014 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FC81A060E for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:02:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VhPylgwMuI1h for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C001A04CA for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11000; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391896937; x=1393106537; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=j/N7mLcvEAojBw2LX+fc27RWHxncQZAVg27zLDaaPg4=; b=jqLxiSZv5f0PKBpsUThPDDxmFvk/xo2vNi0NJ+E3IuJhX60fZlf7Zrq2 9AjzALzIB6TO9m5SU512trjeq74u4E7eh2Mdq9X/xTpIoRWuc3AnYi8Zf /hywg600aWga1PfgptNBbCjsLVfYG3D+Frs37IiCg1et2cj+epC8v2cYS 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,808,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="302797941"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2014 22:02:14 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s18M2ECq022194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:02:14 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:02:13 -0600
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
To: Gert Grammel <>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03
Thread-Index: Ac8jdtO/9HhKhzV1QvabPhbP4TmBNQA4q05AADIm9wA=
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:02:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF1C139695288zaliciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:02:19 -0000


Your and John comments were similar. I have already responded the same and can add a scope clarification text to the document.


Regards … Zafar

From: Gert Grammel <<>>
Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:08 PM
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

Hi Deborah,

I don’t think we should progress this draft at this point. The WG decided that "operating without the PCE is still in the scope of this WG." .Yet the document doesn’t look into this aspect: “The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of the signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the signaled LSP requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document.”
How can the WG know that a network operated without a PCE is able to process the signaling and whether the proposed extensions are complete?

So before rushing into protocol extensions, it would be wise to focus on a framework or applicability statement carving out what needs to be added to existing work in IETF for the use case described. This would bring clarity as to whether route calculation and expansion can be performed and how.



Sent: 06 February 2014 21:06
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03


This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03.

This working group last call ends Feb. 20th. Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

Deborah and Lou