RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

["Giovanna Piantanida (ERI)" <Giovanna.Piantanida@eri.ericsson.se>]

Dear Francois,

>>As Nabil correctly told in his mail, the same debate could be done for 
>>RSVP-TE against CR-LDP. From a functional perspective they are equivalent, 
>>so why should we define two protocols when just one is enough? What kind 
>>of problem can be solved by CR-LDP that RSVP-TE is not able to cope with 
>>(or vice versa)? No one... there are no problems to solve; simply an 
>>operator could prefer CR-LDP, while another could choose RSVP-TE.

>Interesting. Do you think the IETF should have specified a third TE 
>protocol, in case some SP might have prefered the 3rd one?


I don't get the spirit of this last remark: no one was suggesting to specify 
something just because SP could like to have it. in my opinion
the goal of discussion was, oppositely, 
not to persist in specifying something no SP on earth would ever actually
need to use.

best regards,
giovanna