[spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement(updated)
Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256961A0147 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eU1_ji3PWSwP for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9A21A00DD for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASA64480; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:43:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:43:04 +0000
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:43:40 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.224]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:43:35 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana, (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement(updated)
Thread-Index: AQHPSduxh+hFH1XjUE2nJc9fVYOfRQ==
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:43:34 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201ABC@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.18.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201ABCnkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XQ0K9X0vhJpLtjr79kA-d29EYKY
Subject: [spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement(updated)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:43:48 -0000
Alvaro, Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows: " The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF). LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required." In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services including unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC 5036, but RFC 5036 and mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209, but RFC 3209 and P2MP TE. If SR path does not cover multicast, "LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required" is just to mislead. Regards, Zhenbin(Robin) > 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!