I'd like to suggest that this be harmonized with the feedback draft that is already an MPLS WG draft. Solution addresses a common space so why have two very similar solutions?
cheers
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:35 PM
> To: Atsushi Iwata
> Cc: Ron Bonica; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 54th IETF Meeting - Common Control and Measurement Plane
> (ccamp)
>
>
> Hi Atsushi,
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Atsushi Iwata wrote:
>
> > Kireeti and Ron,
> >
> > I requested the slot for presentation of our draft.
> >
> > Could you give me a 5 minute slot for this presentation?
>
> I read the draft, and don't see much new in it. So, instead of
> presenting it again, I would suggest that we start/continue a
> discussion on the mailing list.
>
> So, here goes. Folks that think that this work is interesting
> (especially non-authors) please respond.
>
> First off, I think this is useful work (I didn't need to be hit
> over the head with "Crankback has been identified by the ITU-T as
> requirement" -- although that is good to know).
>
> My question is, do we need a 32 page draft with quite so many
> extensions to get there?
>
> As the draft itself says, "full crankback information should
> indicate the node, link and other resources which have been
> attempted but have failed". The current notify message has some,
> but not all, of this information. It seems to me that starting
> with new error codes, and an indication of where the error was
> would be sufficient (for now).
>
> Can we apply Occam's Razor, please? (It's generally a good idea.)
> If the extensions *are* needed, can we have justifications?
>
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
>
>
>