RE: spc connections

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi John,

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon; 'Kireeti Kompella'
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: spc connections
> 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?

LYO: Yes, I believe that discussing issues on the mailing list may actually
lead to some better understanding and common agreement :o)  

BTW, I did not mean to imply that ALL other people on the list agreed, 
just that there were multiple (at least 4-5) views in support of this.


> 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? 

LYO: There may be SPC implementations, but 3473 does not itself
define how to convey an SPC label.  

> 
> 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?

LYO: Actually, I apologize for that last remark, I was just concerned
seeing people writing new procedures when we hadn't reached some kind
of consensus on the list.

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
>