[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
Hi,
At 12:28 PM 8/11/2004 -0700, Richard Rabbat wrote:
Hi Dimitri, inline...
>
> hi richard, all, - see in-line
>
> >> 1. Loose Path Re-optimization
> >> draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
> >> This draft is stable and has an implementation.
> >> The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain signaling, but
> >> could also be used within a domain. The meeting in San
> Diego reported
> >> relatively few as having read the draft, but no objection to it
> >> becoming a WG draft.
> >
> > Yes. Though I would like the authors to mention GMPLS and drop the
> > focus
> on
> > MPLS since they say in the abstract that this applies to
> "packet and
> > non-packet TE LSPs".
Sure, we will.
>
> agree, i don't know if this has already being pointed out but
> the statement could even become somehow confusing to the
> audience, so it requires to explicitly state [RFC 3209] and
> [RFC 3473] for packet LSPs (as GMPLS support by definition PSC LSPs)
>
agree
> now concerning non-PSC LSPs, there is also a point to be
> addressed that in order to achieve non-disruptive
> re-optimization using MBB one would require double counting
> as a parallel non-PSC LSP would be required (traffic is then
> send over both LSP before tearing the old one)
>
Agree on these points. Would the authors address these issues in the next
revision? And while you're at it, can you fix the double quotes throughout?
ok, will do, thanks for the comments.
Cheers.
JP.
> >> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP
> > Not sure. Adrian mentioned that this would possibly identify items of
> > work for ITU and IETF. What is the thinking of the authors about
> > the draft after the protocol modifications are finished?
> >
> > If the expected outcome is an alignment of the IETF and ITU
> views on LMP, then the draft would have served its purpose and would not
need
> publication as Informational.
>
> your question is sensible, the reason is that in order to
> exchange views we need first to agree 1) that we want to work
> on it then 2) that we are in agreement about these views (you
> will also find part of the response to your in section 6.4)
> and finally 3) that we are in agreement on how to progress the work
>
I support making it a WG draft, at least to be able to initiate liaisons
with SG15.
I'm wondering though what the authors would like the final outcome to be. If
all issues are resolved, then in my opinion this draft should be made to
expire eventually. Otherwise, documenting the areas of divergence as
Informational would be more than appropriate.