Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Sami. Maybe the other options should be in appendix with an
explanation of why they were not chosen?

 

Regards,

Reshad.

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Sami Boutros (sboutros)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:11 AM
To: Raymond Key; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

 

I personally like option 1 in this draft, describing how to re-enable
control word via dynamic LDP signaling.

However, you would need to clarify the steps more..
saying in step 3 that PE2 MUST send a label request and in step 5 that
PE1 MUST respond to the label request with the configured CW setting on
PE1 which was set, as well in step 6 PE2 MUST wait for PE1 label binding
before sending it's label binding with CW set.

As well, it may be good extending the flow chart described in appendix A
in rfc 4447 with option 1.

Not sure, if it is worth mentioning the other options since they have
issues.

Option 2, how will we be able to re-enable CW? isn't that the issue we
are trying to fix?

Option 3, This is avoiding to solve the problem.

Option 4, I don't think this will fly.

Thanks,

Sami
At 01:53 AM 11/19/2010, Raymond Key wrote:



Hi PWE3 working group,
 
In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudowire Control
Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update"  
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 
 
This draft describes the problem of control word negotiation mechanism
specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis, possible solutions
and their potential shortcomings are also discussed.
 
The authors would like to have more feedback from the mailing list
before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the
document and post comments on the mailing list.
 
Thanks,
Raymond Key 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3