Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement - Section 3

["Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yakov,

thanks for the comment. See below.

On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Alvaro,
> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
>> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
>> 
>> Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft
>> by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
>> 
>> Some additional background:  We had issued a call for adoption for
>> draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.
>> From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the
>> list, there was consensus to adopt.  The authors published
>> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the
>> original draft without the solution being present in the use case
>> description.
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
>> 
>> Thanks!
> 
> Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents IGP-based
> MPLS tunnels as a use case for SPRING. Since SPRING is about
> source/explicitly routed tunnels, then the use case of IGP-based
> tunnels is outside the scope of SPRING.  After all, these IGP-based
> tunnels are *not* source/explicitly routed.


alternatively, one could consider the endpoint of the tunnel being 
an explicit request. This makes igp tunnels the simplest form of 
source route tunnels.

Anyway, this could end up into a rhetorical discussion... 

The idea behind section 3, is to illustrate that any source routing 
mechanism spring may standardize, MUST also be able to address the 
very simple form of routing in today's networks: egress point tunnels.

Thanks.
s.



> 
> Yakov.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring