Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 04 June 2010 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D613A67AB for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.523, BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xdiOI1OEw4kk for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B284F3A69D4 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31911 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jun 2010 16:59:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2010 16:59:07 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=XtW6UdVw4tk6vD2gebdE0DzpI1ix1mmUXEIFpYNJlub+WajWlihySbRBcAcfFYioUhtEA2mWvHI80gD4UZJFfNo41SJP5FQnwpUwQ/3w5FfF7xbDUBUu7yrBGsgYknrh;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1OKaEd-0004ZY-Gu; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:59:07 -0600
Message-ID: <4C0930DE.9040808@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:59:10 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100301 Eudora/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
References: <BC6E4F60-899C-4C86-94C1-3F15D98303DD@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC6E4F60-899C-4C86-94C1-3F15D98303DD@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate
X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <rsvp-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rsvp-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rsvp-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:59:22 -0000

Bruce,
	
On 6/4/2010 12:41 PM, Bruce Davie wrote:
> Folks,
>   There are a few drafts floating around that I think we should take a look at and make a recommendation to the ADs regarding their suitability for the TSVWG. These drafts are:
>
> draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02
>
> draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption-02.txt
> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-03.txt
>
> The first one seems pretty non-controversial. Here are comments from the author:
>>
>> draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02 is now a companion draft to draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info-01, and contains only the RSVP-CAC-specific part of the resource sharing thingy. Given that TSVWG is the place for RSVP CAC extensions, yes, I would think TSVWG is the place for it. It's a very small draft basically defining a new codepoint (Resource Sharing Remote-ID Association) with a small behavioural change (only treat this Association-ID as binding on the Resv, not on the Path), so I don't envision any significant backpressure of the form "this is not a small change to RSVP".
>
> I would like to recommend that this be made a TSVWG work item. Any comments or concerns?
>

No concerns, but this does raise the point that the directorate should 
be aware of draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info-01.  Particularly that in it's 
current form the draft extends a TE mechanism to apply to the non-TE/LSP 
RSVP sessions.

Lou