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

Lou Berger <> Fri, 04 June 2010 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D613A67AB for <>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.188
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xdiOI1OEw4kk for <>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id B284F3A69D4 for <>; 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 ( by with SMTP; 4 Jun 2010 16:59:07 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; 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 ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1OKaEd-0004ZY-Gu; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:59:07 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:59:10 -0400
From: Lou Berger <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100301 Eudora/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Davie <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:59:22 -0000

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.