RE: spc connections

[Greg Bernstein <gregbern@yahoo.com>]

Hmm, sorry not to have been following closely lately.
Given the importance of SPCs in practice, clear
interoperable procedures are of prime interest. I'm
not terribly concerned whether they originate in IETF
or ITU or a combination (though the later is
preffered).

Greg B.

Grotto-networking.com

--- "Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree