Re: [PWE3] WG Poll for draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00

Matthew, Yaakov and all,
I concur with Yaakov. IMHO and FWIW:

- VCCV Type 1 is already defined as mandatory for PWs that use the CW (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5085/, Section 5.1.1). If we advance https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-delregno-pwe3-mandatory-control-word/, it will automatically become mandatory for all PWs excluding legacy
- VCCV Type 3 TTL expiration will be mandatory if we advance https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-delregno-pwe3-vccv-mandatory-features/ and also because this is the only way to provide segment-level VCCV in MS-PW. 
 - In order to protect MS-PWs from erroneously forwarding VCCV packets beyond the PW boundaries, VCCV Type 3 has to be combined with VCCV Type  1.

Is there an example of a problem that:
- a) Cannot be solved by using VCCV Type 1, VCCV Type 3 or their combination
- b) Can be solved by using the mechanism in draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00?

If  not, do we advance this draft just to advance it to a Historic RFC?

Regards,
     Sasha

-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:28 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Poll for draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00

Matthew

Is this mechanism a candidate for deprecation as part of the move to reduce the number of VCCV types ?

If not, we will need at least three MUST SUPPORT modes
   1) TTL expiry  2) regular PW CW   3) this proposal
so why bother deprecating the others ?

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 19:18
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Poll for draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00

I believe there is sufficient consensus to pursue this as a working group document.

Would the authors please publish the next version as a PWE3 WG draft.

Regards

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jie Dong
> Sent: 25 September 2010 04:39
> To: pwe3@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Poll for draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00
> 
> Yes/Support
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Jie
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:07 PM
> > To: mpls-tp@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
> > Subject: [PWE3] WG Poll for draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00
> > 
> > The authors of draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 have 
> requested that 
> > this draft be made a PWE3 working group draft.
> > 
> > This email starts a two week poll, closing 30th September, to help 
> > judge
> the
> > consensus for this.
> > 
> > Please rely with yes or no to the PWE3 list.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Matthew and Andy
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3