Re: Moving right along ...

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Kireeti,

> 
> > Is it correct to simply include content of individual drafts into
> > a WG draft that is in last call without adequate data on whether it
> > handles all the different cases?
> 
> Clearly not.  Are you suggesting that that was what was done?
> 
> It is a judgment call to include significant new material into a
> document in last call.  In this instance, handling restart of the
> control plane is of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion.
> That said, this inclusion happened some time ago (late July);
> your comment would have been more timely then.
> 
> In any case, it would be more helpful if you pointed out
> scenarios that are missing, and even better if you had concrete
> suggestions to fix things.


Besides some "corner" issues raised recently yet not answered or answered
publicly. I've some non-corner questions.

To me, what carriers want are (1) How to preserve data path when control
channel/entity fails? (2) How to resync/recover data path information after
failure recovers?

I still don't have good answers to (1), which is a hard requirement. I
understand the solution may be a local decision. Yet, if local behavior may
impact interworking, it's better be specified. For (2), I have a fundamental
requirement question: does recover/resync from neighbor NE (what's being
proposed by Ping Pan) acceptable to transport service providers? because this is
not conventional done in transport network.

Cheers,

Yangguang