Re: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-00.txt

[Tomohiro Otani <otani@kddilabs.jp>]

Hi Adrian,

Sorry for the delay of my response.
I basically understand the intenstion of this draft.

I know the charter deals with the problem and development of both MPLS
and GMPLS.  My concern is that there remains unclear what can be done for
MPLS and not be done for GMPLS, vice versa.  I agree with the procedure
such that GMPLS inter-area/AS-TE framework is progresssed with MPLS
one in a single draft, however, I strongly request to describe the common
functions and differently supported functions more explicitely.

In terms of RRO text, I will send it later.

Regards,

tomo

At 23:55 04/05/20, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Hi Tomohiro,
>
>Thanks for reading the draft.
>
>> 1) Does this draft cover requirements described in draft-ietf-tewg-interas-
>> mpls-te-req-06.txt ?
>
>The intention is that the inter-as and inter-area drafts are inputs to this
>ID. The
>framework should not contradict any requirements expressed in those drafts.
>
>> 2) Although this draft describes the framework in not only MPLS but
>> also GMPLS, the content mainly focuses on MPLS.  For example of
>> As pointed out by Dimitri, this should focus on automated stitching,
>> referring to GMPLS e2e recovery drafts.
>
>It was certainly not the intention to limit the scope to MPLS.
>There will certainly be some techniques that are described that are only
>applicable to
>MPLS. It will be the job of an applicability statement for a specific
>proposed solution to
>show what functions and scenarios are supported.
>
>> 3) In this draft, the architecture using PCE is assumed.  I do not deny
>> this description in MPLS, but I feel unnatural in the case of GMPLS.
>
>It is absolutely not assumed. It is described as only one of the possibilities.
>We would welcome text from you if you feel we have missed out any other
>possibilities.
>
>> 4) In terms of Inter-domain OAM, RRO processing may also be clarified
>> on this draft from the point of route management.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>> 5) Considering the overall, I feel unclear about the difference between
>> requirement draft and the framework draft. Could you clarify this?
>
>The intention is to list the possible techniques that solutions may pick from.
>Solutions still have to
>- show that they meet requirements
>- state their applicability
>- define any usage or protocol extensions.
>
>> 6) I propose to have a separate framework draft of MPLS as well as
>> GMPLS.
>
>Kireeti may care to comment as the independent co-chair in this case.
>My reading is that we are chartered to derive solutions for both
>environments and that it
>would be good to have solutions that are applicable in both situations.
>
>Perhaps you could develop this discussion by suggesting what you would like
>to see
>included in / ommitted from a GMPLS draft.
>
>Thanks.
>Adrian