Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>]

Nabil Seddigh wrote:
> 
> I hope you are not suggesting that the standards not talk about
> E-LSP just because some platforms cannot support it!

No, of course not.

But you can not mandate that every implementation must support both
E-LSP and L-LSP.  There are hardware platforms where one or the other
can never be supported.  You can not force them to do the impossible by
inserting a paragraph into a draft, and you can not tell the vendors
that they will never be standard-compliant without implementing the
impossible.

> The way the requirements read today, it PRECLUDES folks who
> are E-LSP capable from utilizing DS-TE.

I haven't gotten this impression.

> The DS-TE requirement needs to be written in such a way that all
> options are possible:
> 
> 1. It should allow use with L-LSP only,
> 2. It should allow use with E-LSP only
> 3. It should allow use with networks that deploy both L-LSP and E-LSP

If you want to allow cases 1 and 2, then you can't insert a paragraph
into the standard mandating that every implementation must support both.

-- David

>>> Nabil Seddigh wrote:
>>>
>>> - I think it is useful to put an explicit requirement that the TE
>>>   solutions need to support both E-LSP and L-LSP. The way the
>>>   draft reads at the moment, it does not come through clearly.
>>>   Most of the examples and wording would lead one to believe that
>>>   the DS-TE solutions should only focus on L-LSP.