Re: Opinion sought on drafts being adopted by CCAMP

[Kohei Shiomoto <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

Hi, Dimitri and Lyndon

Yes, my concern is misconnection during activation of backup LSP 
procedure originally raised by Yoshihiko (See
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2004/msg00079.html).  Similar 
situation can occur not only for P&R context but also for more general 
context when preemption takes place. Solutions should be explored in 
more general context and several solutions could be developed. I feel 
that the P&R solution document should also address the problem and give 
the solution referring some documents on preemption.
I feel that  "rsvp for e2e recovery" draft is ready for WG document.

--
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Phone +81 422 59 4402    Fax +81 422 59 6387




Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

> lyndon:
>
> > -- egress control - yes.     The question of what kind of target came 
> > up, BCP, Info, etc -
> >    Whatever kind of document it winds up being, I think one
> >    important result should be marking 3473 as being supplemented
> >    by the new document to avoid any future confusion.
> >
> > -- tunnel tracing - yes
> >
> > -- rsvp for e2e recovery - there seemed to be still some concerns
> >    at the meeting, so no (not yet)
>
>
> the concern raised (*) by kohei is the following what are
> the exact steps happening during preemption of LSPs that
> are using the spare capacity in dedicated/shared re-routing
> schemes - however, this concern is broader than simply this
> document - and there are two solutions either the steps
> are being detailed in this document or preemption is going
> to be addressed in a specific document and reference will
> be provided
>
> (*) went to discuss privately since we didn't have the time
> to discuss this point - kohei please correct me if i am
> wrong here -
>
> > -- segment recovery - no (not yet)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Lyndon
> >   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:46 AM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Opinion sought on drafts being adopted by CCAMP
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > At the CCAMP meeting today we discussed making several drafts working 
> > group items. Can you
> > please express your opinion (yes/no) on whether each of the following 
> > drafts is ready to
> > become a CCAMP working group draft.
> >
> > Feel free to express yes with reservations. If you have reservations 
> > or objections, please
> > express them on the list. if you need anonymity for your comments 
> > then please filter them
> > through the chairs.
> >
> > Silence will be taken as meaning nothing, so please say what you think.
> >
> > GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt 
> >
> >
> > Generic Tunnel Tracing Protocol (GTTP) Specification
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonica-tunproto-05.txt
> >
> > RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End GMPLS-based Recovery
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt 
> >
> >
> > GMPLS Based Segment Recovery
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt 
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Adrian