[tsvwg] New versions of MULTI_TSPEC and MULTI_INSTANCE
James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> Fri, 01 March 2013 19:24 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C5021E809E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nI0feUF9jpIP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A78021E803F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:24:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=738; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362165876; x=1363375476; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:mime-version; bh=5nA4BwKCqPDIbm1W/Cre919Q4nkUmajkpwYxmw8/Udw=; b=YZaR5REw+mj1YUugPFH3ey5AE5UafTgq6p6xj0Ik+jg7aD7T8nN1Rqkk MXk3xUwm5Vo/7mp0pc54YKUHPerF4gMEVvIqkcsPo6xawZUgXrsrvnwCP gkPirhXJQ4TL1g8B5hNpnQsL3z9RLrkLVLl3830odNeAqMbS3DMESrAko 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,762,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="182757342"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 19:24:36 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-WS.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8717.cisco.com [10.99.80.24]) (authenticated bits=0) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21JOaD0012741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:24:36 GMT
Message-Id: <201303011924.r21JOaD0012741@rcdn-core-3.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:24:31 -0600
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Authenticated-User: jmpolk
Subject: [tsvwg] New versions of MULTI_TSPEC and MULTI_INSTANCE
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:24:37 -0000
TSVWG (with my individual hat on) I have updated one WG item (MULTI_TSPEC), as well as the individual item (MULTI_INSTANCE) that was proposed to replace. MULTI_TSPEC has been presented in several meetings, with MULTI_INSTANCE presented for the first time in Atlanta. I think the MULTI_INSTANCE draft is a better solution, but am willing to go with what the WG has previously had interest in making a WG item (MULTI_TSPEC). I do not want to keep both efforts churning, so I ask, which effort do we progress? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-02.txt or http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-rsvp-multi-instance-object-01.txt (with my individual hat on) James