IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Teas] A basic question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 27 January 2016 14:09 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 512FE1B2E83 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:09:37 -0800 (PST)
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 axN_lL0mJUq3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:09:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E4A41B2E80 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 29617 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jan 2016 14:09:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2016 14:09:31 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id B99S1s00D2SSUrH0199VN2; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:09:29 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bej4Do/B c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=URlnaiz7JMEA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=7aQ_Q-yQQ-AA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=DYG8fTVIZDg0ERVO7_4A: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:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To; bh=UFCSjuTZ5p0FjlMQTrH4pe8WlruS/5758ZrxhD29feM=; b=r2MKMsB8EYoHlvyqz2u3jnnc+RSSeVav+maqYa09P9ICqbRibtKWnkH2kF8Y3prSfoej5a8hTU4/0AOfGzmcsA+YOBvTwn3pzggP9VH/GYWGadGr9QyDXHXZUIWyEA2N;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:33514 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1aOQmm-0002dG-O3; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:09:28 -0700
To: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection@ietf.org, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56A8CF8A.6080500@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:09:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
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/sC0z1cExrpD-flZKgHnIgoccr5s>
Subject: [Teas] A basic question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:09:37 -0000

Hi,
    I have a question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection that is
prompted by today's interim and can be covered there and/or on list:

Given that the draft says:
>    The egress local protection may be generalized and used with the
>    segment protection defined in RFC 4873 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4873>.  How it is generalized and
>    used is out of scope for this document.
>

Why define a new set of formats and mechanisms when an existing set of
formats and mechanisms can be used or adapted to (a) provide the same
function and (b) do so in a more general way?

I look forward to hearing/discussing the rational for not not reusing
what we already have defined.

Thanks,
Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email