IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 17 April 2015 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E2A1A037D for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 8pD8xJC9tu2S for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E9CD1A038B for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23414 invoked by uid 0); 17 Apr 2015 00:01:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2015 00:01:23 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id Gu1J1q00X2SSUrH01u1MJQ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:01:21 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ae7yw3Yt c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=SY9aFQKHIdAA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=e9J7MTPGsLIA:10 a=60CpFMp27n9GLAiktu4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=nlUKtJe5vXgA:10 a=uCOKgLPf4YAA:10 a=-rvzrao-qfIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=2d/844zw9DugXEjBNR/DdonF/1Y54jwd0si0NWDdIzE=; b=cCMIcGvqThzY+1qyijAnp6oETtaODSFvngNNEa3L1CyG5df7siFmpTXb364YaqOWOAxQXWto6Y9FzFVsTdanHUWIInNfLNP6x2B/kOY8ZHZjKVAJgdc4cO2Z+2O0Sfkq;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:57390 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Yitii-000094-8K; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:01:20 -0600
Message-ID: <55304D4A.9050604@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:01:14 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4bOO9KC90l14Z6JC8Qs57sWM090>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:01:24 -0000

Authors/WG,
    I'm a bit uncomfortable with the document's use of FEC in the
context if RSVP-TE.  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).

Thoughts?

Lou (with any / all hats)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email