IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 17 April 2015 09:44 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 EC6FB1ACEA8 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 sWc4oaj1mAYb for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:44:24 -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 D46741A1A25 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9599 invoked by uid 0); 17 Apr 2015 09:44:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2015 09:44:23 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id GxkG1q00F2SSUrH01xkKXJ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:44:21 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=FPmImYYs c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=gaoa-Wm5cTEA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=AqI0xvK1tnMA:10 a=e9J7MTPGsLIA:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=X8t1Sf7AzTTqTJ123F0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA: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:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From; bh=IQ8ybdpb0rKoq9WEJ3LfPKemom1X2JOt5L5jnnxrEu4=; b=QWSO8ogmfwhK1/pRHAjpRXAg0ilV0SL9fBHN5pgW56Wkr56jQq4wQbxm8MJdK8Z3zHYCsYdC6hteRmgs76Ow91l9MmacWVCsCmxQGJHxG1BloESiAHKWzLTMvGTptcNb;
Received: from [74.96.190.213] (port=51998 helo=[11.4.0.117]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Yj2os-0000hB-Eq; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:44:18 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:44:17 -0400
Message-ID: <14cc6c3a9b0.27e9.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <D156097C.11CEAB%zali@cisco.com>
References: <D156097C.11CEAB%zali@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 AquaMail/1.5.5.19 (build: 21050019)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 74.96.190.213 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BkGz6SJtAf6g50mdRZFalUmm7T8>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 09:44:26 -0000

Hi Zafar,


On April 17, 2015 12:49:50 AM "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> wrote:

> Lou-
>
> How about we change the terminology to use RSVP-TE "LSP identifier" or
> "tunnel identifier", depending on the context, instead?
>

I think any wording that unambiguously reflects your / the authors' / wg's 
intent is just fine.

Thanks,
Lou

> Thanks
>
> Regards Š Zafar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 8:01 PM
> To: "draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org"
> <draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org>
> Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity
>
> >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)
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Teas mailing list
> >Teas@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status