RE: spc connections

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@Ciena.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:53 PM
> To: 'Kireeti Kompella'
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: spc connections
> 
> 
> Hi Kireeti,
> 
> I'll be happy to provide feedback any time.
> 
> 
> <ccamp chair hat on>
> Being consistent with G.7713.2 isn't at the top of my list until the
> many issues with 7713.2 are cleared up.  Being consistent with 3473 is
> at the very top of my list.  Reusing objects defined in 3473 (which is
> an IETF Standards Track document), and more fully explaining their
> processing where needed is exactly what CCAMP should be doing.
> 
> Kireeti.
> -------
> 
> I understand that you have many aspects to weigh, and 7713.2 is
> only one of them.  However, the SPC Label procedure is one where
> there have been no technical issues, and it has been implemented
> and tested.  Other people on the list have concluded that there
> is a reasonable case for separating this from the ERO, and it is
> not in fact supported by the current procedures in 3473.


JD:  Do you think that if you continue saying this that it will somehow
become true?


> I'm 
> not sure, therefore, why this would create an inconsistency with 3473
> (I guess there is a case where the ERO contains the terminating
> endpoint node ID and an explicit label, but if the connection is
> SPC the procedures are not defined).


JD:  What makes you think that there are not SPC implementations that
use RFC3473? 


> 
> It seems like people are bound and determined to go their own
> way on this, although I'm not sure why.

JD:  I'm assuming that you're referring to youself?

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
>