Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Wataru,

>   I believe that my draft includes some issues which have not addressed
in
>   bernsteins draft.
>   For example, the issue of section 5 in my draft.
>   This is important issue when LCAS&VCAT will be applied in MRN.
>
>   I understand your proposal is my requirement draft
>     draft-imajuku-ccamp-gmpls-vcat&lagr-req-00.txt
>   will be merged with draft-bernstein-ccamp-....
>   or simply discard ?

As I said in my original email...
>>- Why isn't my I-D also cited as input material?
>>   No insult intended. The current list is simply there to
>>   show the ADs that work is already in progress. All I-Ds
>>   will be used as input.

Nothing of value will be thrown away.
All input to working group drafts is welcome whether it is supplied as
comments on the email list or as a separate I-D.

With regard to your section 5, I note that you consider the VCAT group
analogous with a link bundle. I don't think this is correct because the
members of a link bundle must be selected and used individually. A payload
data stream cannot be distributed across multiple component links of the
bundle...
   An LSP with a bandwidth requirement b and
   setup priority p fits in a bundled link if at least one component
   link has maximum LSP bandwidth >= b at priority p.
However, the whole point of a VCAT group is to produce a single entity
(pipe) with maximum LSP bandwidth greater than the capacity of any
individual component. A VCAT group, therefore, is not a bundle.

Following on from this, I think that the remainder of your section 5.1
will have some value, but needs to be corrected to properly reflect the
meaning of a VCAT group.

In general, I think your section 5 should generalize from the specific
case of the FA to include any TE link that is based on a VCAT group.

Section 5.2 seems to confuse "FA" with "FA LSP".

Regards,
Adrian