RE: Opinion on WG drafts for Multi-region/layer networks

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com>]

Hi Richard

See inline, 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Richard Rabbat
> Envoyé : jeudi 22 décembre 2005 23:28
> À : zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc : ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Opinion on WG drafts for Multi-region/layer networks
> 
> yes to both
> 
> two questions:
> 1. since MLN is a special case of MRN, can we collapse this 
> whole topic to MRN? is there a compelling reason for keeping 
> these 2 notation?

Actually a MLN is not a special case of MRN. Rather a MRN is a special case of MLN. A network comprised of VC4 and VC4-64c capable node is a MLN but not a MRN.
"Layer" refers to a data plane switching layer (e.g. VC4, VC4-64c...). While "region" refers to a switching capablity (PSC, TDM...).
The term MLN is used to discuss mechanisms that apply equally to layers and regions (VNT...) while the term MRN is used to discuss multi-regions specific mechanisms (e.g. Adaptation capability). 

> 2. Section 3 of draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-02.txt is a 
> requirments section and therefore not relevant to this draft 
> but belongs to draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-03.txt. 
> there is no advantage to repeting requirements.

The objective was to ease the reading, but we can easily remove it if considered as irrelevant.

Thanks for your support and for these comments.

Regards,

JL


> 
> thanks,
> richard.
> 
> Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >We have a charter milestone to start WG work on a 
> Requirements I-D for 
> >MRN/MLN, and also an Evaluation I-D to examine how the current 
> >protocols shape up to the challenge.
> >
> >There are two appropriate I-Ds that have been around for a while.
> >
> >draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-03.txt
> >draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-02.txt
> >
> >I propose that we make these WG documents and then give them 
> a thorough 
> >review and edit.
> >
> >Opinions please.
> >
> >Yes or no will suffice, but reasons are always nice.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Adrian
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>