Re: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

Hi Loa,

On April 17, 2015 4:23:52 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Lou,
>
> On 2015-04-17 02:01, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Authors/WG,
> >      I'm a bit uncomfortable with the document's use of FEC in the
> > context if RSVP-TE.
> Yes, I share that concern, the FEC terminology originated in LDP
> context, but have since developed developed.
>
> > RFC3209's usage of FEC is very loose and rfc4379
> > only gives an indirect definition in one context.  I think that either
> > the draft should avoid the term or it should point to a to be written
> > formal definition of the term in the context of RSVP-TE (including in
> > its GMPLS form).
>
> I've been looking for a while for that defintion, and as far as I can
> there is no RSVP-TE message or object that actually carry a FEC. It has
> been said the the FEC definition is "implicit", but I don't think that
> is a solution, rather it is part of the problem.
>
> I think that "avoid" would be easiest,

This seems to be what Zafar was proposing.

> but if the authors go for
> defining a FEC in RSVP-TE context, I think that the consensus call for
> such a definiton need to involve teas and mpls, but I think ccamp and
> pce should also be notified for the such a consesus call.
>

I completely agree. I also think this must be in its own document.

Lou
> /Loa
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Lou (with any / all hats)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>