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

Zafar,

On 2015-04-17 06:49, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Lou-
>
> How about we change the terminology to use RSVP-TE "LSP identifier" or
> "tunnel identifier", depending on the context, instead?

I guess this is "avoiding" - which is fine with me.

It bothers me a (little) bit that "LSP-id" or "tunnel-id" should be 
equivalent with "FEC". FEC is used to decide what goes on (the same)
LSP, while the id's are identifiers for the LSP or the tunnel.

/Loa
>
> 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
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64