Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp

<> Mon, 14 January 2019 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B4D12896A for <>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.04
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KA5EfXZFjH57 for <>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F207130FC7 for <>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q18so22035019wrx.9 for <>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :thread-index; bh=apC+x+mmFHwK+vG+YCIgvVlUsbZuesSSVA/ydhcIlIk=; b=pn3Gq4zVjx6qzZD0lZUb/v0/77SHhrLIlU3z42pMLOk7Dwlxt9Ds72jYPBekt79Roc LbW2yF7ldKbqUzTiAnGe0UstIg+2sRJc75EuADnL6WcM3Bu5Vw0jBYd+NHzD/sJfBIov AgeuEpmvL0Wr9/tgvQQL6FX2SGAplQkq9eInVM30AIdItfOo9tgIeYsmjtZipjFz7Qh4 vQFzGuaeHMQI/Up+nAFwftBuKq4mv4tK75p/OVCGZXK/oNSZBn2mx4FOEoCZNuqf97wm Vc9e23DtEY+i04N52ehPB0NaByZrmVuBUkuzlHET1SRhkh01CkDBwaOqIf6NWRC3neLJ MJzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:thread-index; bh=apC+x+mmFHwK+vG+YCIgvVlUsbZuesSSVA/ydhcIlIk=; b=tnuo5LGzlGZakz25nDVUHlhAfPbmyZlN4zBpux7XA7yCFjOhQVPBXmcr60Xw7lYQ6c qATMJrorxQzWgT21CHH0Z7NOud/fcak2hXkJIQ4IYAY89bRE8tenpEHX0OIp82GSyNJk tGbDcuEKhIwQxvLhwq/K2h1w8nK0XwaFWgURJ4qfQtzFHSFU4suP2soVrALLG3uXNjEh vUUB4k6Vllx6MHUyVq18KNBluB39ld0Km5/0X69ubsnaoDjlC0Qduk1gqcF9ZhyT8ff2 xUa/yL9/zxbVvFhbwW0BH2xRHm2iFfZOznNN44koesn2QeRJS5UNV2W+ZgL8z93Z9nvd co4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcpMyPA0oI5Y0C5EmAd4ScHLKgyIWdf3kVNuwLHe2F+Hio2pdQT RQmM6cvLRj9EdjG4HSbC4If9ncNJsfA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6IFMfOPuHqdMcQs3q8c7qV4FjKTDnJ5OkQfXUHAe977ARZjzVLzra7o98+wuA9SUMqrOKEzg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9b11:: with SMTP id b17mr23903131wrc.168.1547459890887; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CIPHER ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n15sm60324823wrt.21.2019. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Daniel King <>
X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" <>
From: <>
To: "'TEAS WG'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:58:06 -0000
Message-ID: <002601d4abef$a62eb7c0$f28c2740$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQICjPEcT5O/V4ha+n2YhC+H0yRMMQGmZp7LpUWNrcA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:58:17 -0000

Hi All, 

Happy New Year!
Whoops, I know the poll closed but I have now read the document and thought I would add my 10 pence. 

Yes, I support. 

Having read through the I-D it seems to be defining a GMPLS-based SMP protection type for primary and secondary LSPs, considering the nature of  deployments and single vendor GMPLS environments, I can see the reluctance by some to not support the work. Personally, I think operators would use this type of mechanism and having an agreed well-defined IETF document that defines generic procedure would be helpful. 

BR, Dan.  

From: Teas <>; On Behalf Of
Sent: 08 January 2019 01:16
To: TEAS WG <>;
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp



From: Teas [] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:07 PM
To: TEAS WG <>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <>
Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp


This is start of a *three* week poll on making
draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp a TEAS working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends Jan 8th 2019 (extra week to account for the holidays).

Pavan and Lou