IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 22 September 2014 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BF91A1A28 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQ-scs_xeq8D for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D72D11A1A24 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7344718C13C; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 549A8238055; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.127]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:41:12 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "cheshire@apple.com" <cheshire@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac/TU6bH7pGLI6+MSL2FizvHY3vI8wAe8PHQAAY97gAAAC/G8AADI4LwAIxx+6A=
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:41:11 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933006BC04@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832B5B2@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933006B05A@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832BF02@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933006B24F@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832BF59@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832BF59@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.81224
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/FnMGBU1BS4fC1GiJE5Mg73O-nws
Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:41:15 -0000

Hi Tiru,

Great!

Lets' discuss offline how that (prioritization) option can be defined.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
>Envoyé : vendredi 19 septembre 2014 12:46
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; pcp@ietf.org; cheshire@apple.com
>Objet : RE: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
>
>>
>> [Med] I can understand the priority level for flows that are subject to
>check-
>> pointing, but I have an issue to generalize this draft to address the
>> prioritization purpose ** only **. The problems are not the same. If
>> prioritization is needed as a requirement in its own (which I understand
>since
>> I'm for a mean to indicate at least DSCP), then a dedicated option can be
>> defined for that purpose.
>
>Works for me.
>
>-Tiru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email