IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Fri, 17 April 2015 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
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 C7EF81ACD01; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 SUfbcaDTCSxa; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF771ACD02; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1050; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429246154; x=1430455754; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9YZtQ3yLAE3Faw5m1pGUFJXIhCzD2wyCgDm3jFGCN38=; b=maXAjIls+1QOxgAcnroyEOVglsDtJ2s6xkEB8Ku+hC+dZnntMWpDkIP9 z0tjargxY9t2nNJBW6rCM2ZOg5UW9WJlUkupqNw+eOJlBJjjUhA0Dob2h DV/LNL68O1f64HRIhsxhPwF9VdSUIg4jaCuStWEk9xDMPNQHOmi2G82Vl 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BpBACPkDBV/4gNJK1dgwxSXAXFfwmBRQqEcYESAoFROBQBAQEBAQEBfYQgAQEBBAEBAWsLDAYBCA4DAwECVgsdCAIEAQ0FiCoNx3oBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBIsphHwHBoQnAQSRGooalQMig29vgUR/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,591,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="142038403"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2015 04:49:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3H4n2V0002377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:49:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.189]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:49:02 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity
Thread-Index: AQHQeKGoxPHfrUZ9FkaBXWM7e6qcMp1QtK0A
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:49:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D156097C.11CEAB%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55304D4A.9050604@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.86.252.14]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <F2D416E53E1DE746B6A12D80A4C95800@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Xvb5W8n1glHNIjr6hLgZjIQJ7pA>
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 04:49:15 -0000

Lou- 

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email