Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

Thanks

From: Adrian Farrel=20 [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 3:14 PM
To= :=20 dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Sadler, Jonathan B.
Cc:=20 Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:<= /B>=20 Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

Posted

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message=20 -----
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
To= :=20 "Sadler, Jonathan B." <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com>
Cc:=20 <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>;=20 <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:13=20 PM
Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

>= hi=20 -
>
> i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess = they=20 will be soon
> available on the IETF material website
>
>=20 <https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/materials.html>
>
>=20 thanks,
> -d.
>
>
> Sadler, Jonathan B.=20 wrote:
>> Hi Dmitiri,
>> I'm intersted in looking a= t the=20 remainder of your slides (since we ran
>> out of time and you didn= 't=20 get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain
>> there are people= that=20 were not in the room that would like to see all of
>> the slides. = Can=20 you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to
>> the li= st=20 and/or Adrian?
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan=20 Sadler
>> =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> The=20 information contained in this message may be privileged
>> and=20 confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
>> of th= is=20 message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
>> or agent=20 responsible for delivering this message to the
>> intended recipie= nt,=20 you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
>> dissemination or=20 distribution of this communication is strictly
>> prohibited. If y= ou=20 have received this communication in error,
>> please notify us=20 immediately by replying to the message and
>> deleting it from you= r=20 computer. Thank you. Tellabs
>>=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8847E.14931D96-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:31:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5A73A6EB9 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zlc-LchrKJxx for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6D13A6E1C for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZXMB-000KoO-IV for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:23 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZXM3-000Kif-Ki; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:20 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2CKF1nC014732; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:01 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dhcp-148c.ietf71.ietf.org [130.129.20.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2CKEul8014690; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:00 GMT Message-ID: <010701c8847d$bdfeccf0$8c148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , "Sadler, Jonathan B." Cc: , References: <47D82B41.1070403@psg.com> Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Posted Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "dimitri papadimitriou" To: "Sadler, Jonathan B." Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck > hi - > > i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess they will be soon > available on the IETF material website > > > > thanks, > -d. > > > Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: >> Hi Dmitiri, >> I'm intersted in looking at the remainder of your slides (since we ran >> out of time and you didn't get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain >> there are people that were not in the room that would like to see all of >> the slides. Can you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to >> the list and/or Adrian? >> Thanks, >> Jonathan Sadler >> ============================================================ >> The information contained in this message may be privileged >> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader >> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee >> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, >> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and >> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs >> ============================================================ >> > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 07:15:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FF33A6E80 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pKJoW7CB5Z5Z for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7528228C7D1 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZnwn-0005aK-6p for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:58:17 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZnwG-0005Ma-Ok for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:58:03 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 3EF953A6E67; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Message-Id: <20080313140001.3EF953A6E67@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-03-13 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits. This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-13065650.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 07:45:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DC33A6E83 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCq2-fUeKIsi for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CAF28C14F for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZoYK-000G7g-Hy for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:04 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JZoYE-000G6K-98 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:59 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2DEar2W023515; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:53 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dhcp-148c.ietf71.ietf.org [130.129.20.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2DEan4t023459; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:52 GMT Message-ID: <020801c88517$ab341b80$8c148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: Subject: Fw: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk CCAMP : As discussed, we are bis-ing RFC 4420. We will complete this quickly. Please raise any other issues you would like to see fixed. MPLS : You may have missed this discussion. RFC 4420 had an RSVP-TE TLV format that differed from all other RSVP-TE TLV formats. CCAMP felt very strongly that this should be fixed very fast before there are any deployment issues. All : Please comment on whether we should deprecate any codepoints to avoid b/w compatibility issues, or whether you think it is OK to continue with existing codepoints? Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE > Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2008-03-13 > > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may > be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object > (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to > indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has > eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in > many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of > the previously unused bits. > > This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows > the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of > arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to > support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way > to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 12:36:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3D73A698C for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18qrQduNHi+5 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B283728C286 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jac0q-000J4C-9G for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:25:48 +0000 Received: from [168.127.0.56] (helo=fncnmp03.fnc.fujitsu.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jac0n-000J3X-F1 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:25:46 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,506,1199685600"; d="scan'208,217";a="321784112" Received: from rchemx01.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.104]) by fncnmp01.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2008 14:25:44 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB" Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:25:43 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Thread-Index: AciG0lx3duJDIC/4Tam/iLirW1e/Rw== From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" , "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" , "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Kohei and Greg, I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over = VCAT server layer resources. From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear = how will this exactly work. For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 = LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would = appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth = capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which = LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I = think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent to = the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. Is there a defined way of handling this situation? Thanks, Snigdho ------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP
Hello Kohei and Greg,

I have a question about client layer = LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over VCAT server layer resources.

From reading = 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear how will = this exactly work.

For example, we set up a VCAT group = (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I = believe each of these LSPs would appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the = client layer with bandwidth capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). = My question is which LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the = ethernet LSP, I think an additional component link with bandwidth = capacity equivalent to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be = created.

Is there a defined way of handling this = situation?

Thanks,
Snigdho
------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 14:38:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E3C3A6ABC for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jvYVDsqzyWo for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79B63A6A77 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jaduv-000MJx-L6 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:27:49 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jadus-000MJa-UC for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:27:48 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id BFDA23A6848; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Message-Id: <20080315213001.BFDA23A6848@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-03-15 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits. This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-15141755.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 06:29:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EDB28C14B for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.279, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUQXoDk-xo9f for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA7728C27E for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbFDl-0009mG-Fp for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:17:45 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbFBP-0009Mr-V2 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:04 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2HDFHkB028932 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:15:17 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2HDFF2N028911 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:15:16 GMT Message-ID: <01d601c88830$efe10b50$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Presentation skipped in Philadelphia Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:15:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Greg kindly sacrificed one of his slots on the agenda so that we could squeeze in everything else. Please don't forget to look at: c. Signaling Extensions for WSON (Greg - 10 mins [125/150]) Slides (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/ccamp-22.ppt) Background reading - draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-01.txt (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-01.txt) ...and send your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:37:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F3728C588 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:37:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qwBa3oN+EIbY for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D7928C5AC for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbZxe-000A24-9W for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:30 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbZxb-000A1B-6U for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:28 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2IBQ9gu017082; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:09 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IBPvrO016850; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:08 GMT Message-ID: <041d01c888ea$da4a5b10$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Kohei Shiomoto $E-mail$" , "Greg Bernstein $E-mail$" Cc: "Ccamp $E-mail$" References: Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:25:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a link in some specific network layer. LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped together and the whole group is used as a link in another network layer. So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the architecture) one might have three layers to consider... - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of the VCAT layer LSP. Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide the coordination with the client layer direct. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Hello Kohei and Greg, I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over VCAT server layer resources. From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear how will this exactly work. For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. Is there a defined way of handling this situation? Thanks, Snigdho From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:39:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6E03A6EEE for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:39:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.205, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfZTGGjoCLvB for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5733A67DF for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbZvy-0009ee-6y for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:46 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbZvv-0009dl-2g for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:44 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2IBOYmS015704; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:35 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IBOWtZ015621; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:33 GMT Message-ID: <041c01c888ea$a20042b0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Ccamp $E-mail$" Cc: "Lou Berger $E-mail$" References: Subject: Re: LSPID for Segment Recovery Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:18:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Snigdho, No-one else seems willing to answer you, so I'll pick it up... > I have a doubt on the relationship between LSPID and association > ID for tunnels with segment recovery. Would appreciate it if > someone could clarify. > > RFC4872 suggests using the working LSP's LSPID as the > association ID in the ASSOCIATION object for the recovery > LSP and the reverse for the working LSP and RFC4873 > requires the use of this definition as per the following extract: > > 2. Segment Recovery > > snip ...... snip > > When [RFC4090] isn't being used, the association between segment > recovery LSPs with other LSPs is indicated using the ASSOCIATION > object defined in [RFC4872] > > I would expect this definition includes the way the association > ID value should be assigned, is my understanding correct? > > I can understand how the ASSOCIATION object for the recovery > LSP can have its association ID set to the working LSP LSPID but > it may not be possible for the reverse since there could be multiple > recovery LSP segments. I think the clue may be in section 3.2.1 of RFC 4873 Recovery type processing procedures are the same as those defined in [RFC4872], but processing and identification occur with respect to segment recovery LSPs. Note that this means that multiple ASSOCIATION objects of type recovery may be present on an LSP. > I would like to understand what should the working LSP association > ID be in case of segment recovery, should it be set to its own LSPID? > > Also, my understanding is that the association ID needs to be unique > in the context of the association source, if that is the case does it > mean if LSPID is used as the association ID then the LSPID should > also be unique in the context of the association source rather than the > context of a tunnel. Association only happens between LSPs belonging to the same session. Thus, LSP ID is sufficiently unique. See 4872 for a fuller description. Cheers, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 06:03:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280B03A692B for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:03:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.968 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.138, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EgZPJoZgFni4 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A69C28C5BF for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbbFH-000PU2-I7 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:48:47 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbbFA-000PRr-U1 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:48:46 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2ICmcqw001513 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:48:39 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2ICmbdW001463 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:48:38 GMT Message-ID: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:43:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 07:10:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D153A6F01 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8XnWTlRnZNqw for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644A628C5F6 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbcFK-000C6z-7f for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:52:54 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbcF9-000C4b-3N for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:52:48 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 5764F21230; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:48:57 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab192bb000004ec0-ae-47dfc849c983 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3E00221229; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:48:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:48:57 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:48:55 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684013196B5@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+b1RRNVACLqlQt+6twh0HBU5CAABP1uw From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 13:48:57.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFDA9AA0:01C888FE] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi guys, in line. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: marted=EC 18 marzo 2008 13.43 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list=20 > of potential new working group I-Ds. >=20 > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own=20 > sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first=20 > (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. >=20 > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You=20 > are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes :-) > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:04:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDE028C540 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:04:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoFJP5+TjkLq for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED8628C6B2 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdAt-0000Ki-4v for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:52:23 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdAc-0000HR-Nc for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:52:10 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,518,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="2145299" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2008 10:52:05 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IEq5Ux018921; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:05 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IEq54X000552; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:52:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:05 -0400 Received: from 10.86.104.185 ([10.86.104.185]) by xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:52:05 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:05 -0400 Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds From: JP Vasseur To: Adrian Farrel , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciJB6Go4Ce6dPT6EdyNXAANk8WjQA== In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 14:52:05.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2106920:01C88907] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=85; t=1205851925; x=1206715925; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20 |To:=20Adrian=20Farrel=20,=20; bh=Pp4qKNWAKvHCksKMd9m7FrIGvvwh53eC5NCqNnlYxyQ=; b=aGOYsjwGo9jfoEKfYczfs3ljVUTuOMAcmCB7/aihJwL9MhX5wzQhyP/TdT 3QlnT9cE1SF7q+S6Yi4A6Wb8+w7JeiilzcNhUR18Yf7+FwNTXd98rjJRaYcr +QcE0TMKR0; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In favor (I'm a co-author) From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:15:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4EB28C5E4 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:15:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jdb4n8huoRO7 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6EB28C61A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdIu-0002ZQ-8p for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:00:40 +0000 Received: from [129.60.39.147] (helo=tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdIl-0002YI-6V for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:00:37 +0000 Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.144]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2IF08DQ011382; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9F163EE; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C389C63ED; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IF082k017088; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imc0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.141]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IF07g2017083; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (neba-hp-shiomoto.nslab.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.80.23]) by imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IF02kP012934; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:07 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47DFD8A9.9010509@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:58:49 +0900 From: Kohei Shiomoto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" , "Ccamp (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP References: <041d01c888ea$da4a5b10$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <041d01c888ea$da4a5b10$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Snigdho Thank you for your question. I agree with Adrian. Hierarchy bis describes, when a LSP is dynamically created, the ingress LSP may indicates the LSP is advertised or used to carry traffic. We consider the bundling link composed of component links in this draft.But VCAT connection is not a bundled link. Call concept are used to a VCAT connection, which is composed of multiple co-signaled member sets.How to advertise a link composed of the VCG can be developed in the context of call concept to avoid intermediate layer. But we do not have to exclude use of the same mechanism defined in hierarchy-bis for this purpose. Best regards, Kohei > Hi, > > IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. > > Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may > indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a > link in some specific network layer. > > LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped > together and the whole group is used as a link in another network layer. > > So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange > information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client > layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the > architecture) one might have three layers to consider... > > - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs > - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between > VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT > layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should > be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. > - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of > the VCAT layer LSP. > > Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be > considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture > defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them > explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide > the coordination with the client layer direct. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" > > To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg > Bernstein (E-mail)" > Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM > Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP > > > Hello Kohei and Greg, > > I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) > over VCAT server layer resources. > >> From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not >> clear how > will this exactly work. > > For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 > LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would > appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth > capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which > LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I > think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent > to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. > > Is there a defined way of handling this situation? > > Thanks, > Snigdho > > > > -- Kohei Shiomoto, Ph.D Senior Research Engineer, Supervisor, Group Leader NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories http://www.ntt.co.jp/islab/org/ns.html 3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone +81 422 59 4402 Fax +81 422 59 3787 Free online contents of "NTT Technical Review" available at https://www.ntt-review.jp/ From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:47:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DA03A6D1D for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRbOCrB1gXq5 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE6728C305 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbdpk-00088e-Kt for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:34:36 +0000 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdpZ-000874-OB for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:34:31 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2IFY8ol069068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:34:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <47DFE0EF.4070900@grotto-networking.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:34:07 -0700 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes. Good to have metrics. > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. Good to be able to convert between SPCs and PCs > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes. Need this to work with same mechanism as PCE. > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes. Good to locate and identify stranded resources. > > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:48:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DE028C305 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:48:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlMWJUFNlei8 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A566E3A6EF9 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdsT-0008ZA-MR for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:37:25 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbdsO-0008YZ-7B for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:37:24 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,518,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="2158179" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2008 11:37:19 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IFbJ3q009519; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:19 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IFbJce003594; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:37:19 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:19 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:30 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9o+SiFnOvK1mSA6PknTy0TfBKQAEkJig References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 15:37:19.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[F378A790:01C8890D] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=103; t=1205854639; x=1206718639; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Adrian=20Farrel=22=20,=20; bh=wJxJUkX2JOTlJREFSjO2IhrwM8xwm9/7d9P5jmVZVs0=; b=NUK7KfmQtQUxndwSZd1GceeewDAD7g8xtqMMTVZQDRtiD65jNNhQtABDS2 IsOFWT0O8dhpmsoTK5T87xIsifnAb1XyWA1PV469u6He+PgmDIRtDq/ClGSt UQ8I8ddcKe; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In favor=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar =20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:10:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3311D28C63A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:10:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.273 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mrmEeolkzRHR for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D23728C769 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbfzV-000BlH-Eb for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:52:49 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbfzL-000BRa-Ny for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:52:45 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2IHof1d010717; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:50:41 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IHobeH010671; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:50:40 GMT Message-ID: <05ed01c88920$9335e240$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Scott Bradner" , "Lam, Hing-Kam $Kam$" , "Stephen Trowbridge" , "Yoichi Maeda" , , "Ross Callon" , "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Subject: ASON Routing Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:50:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, You may have noticed the liaison we received from the ITU-T at the end of February on ASON routing. This was a detailed review of RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 against the latest requirements documented in ITU-T Recommendations and arose in response to our request for exactly such a review after we heard that Study Group 15 was not happy with our analysis. You can see the liaison at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/424/ and the output of the review at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file531.pdf We held an ad hoc meeting in Philadelphia with many of the concerned parties (thanks to the ITU folk who travelled specially, and to the IETF GMPLS and routing experts who gave up their evening) to discuss the issues raised, to try to understand and scope the differences, and to agree the way forward. We decided that the best approach will be to revise RFC 4258 as a bis, and to then consider whether any further work is needed to RFC 4652. At the same time, we will freeze work on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt until we know whether it also needs to be modified - we expect that by the time of our next meeting (July 2008) we will know whether modifications are required. The new work will lead to draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4258-bis-00.txt. But may get there through multiple revisions of an individual submission. The draft may reuse substantial text from RFC 4258, but it was agreed that every requirement in the document will show full traceability back to the ITU-T recommendations. At the moment, I am looking to put together a "compact" team of editors for this work. People in the team must be prepared to make significant textual contributions. Please contact me if you wish to be in this team (please also assume that I have not heard from you unless you receive a response from me). Once the team is in place, we will also set up an IETF mailing list for open community discussions of the work. When the work is complete it will we discussed and last called on the CCAMP mailing list, and will be liaised to the ITU-T as appropriate. We will also liaise this information to the ITU-T to solicit contributors from there. Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:28:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8BB3A695D for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:28:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyX5DBs53sZQ for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE293A6812 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbgQY-000Jcs-K9 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:20:46 +0000 Received: from [206.16.17.180] (helo=usaga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbgQS-000JZw-Hm for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:20:44 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.9.16]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JXX0096RUYFTK@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:20:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Lee736821 ([10.124.12.51]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JXX00IN5UYB7Z@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:20:39 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:20:33 -0600 From: Young Lee Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds In-reply-to: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> To: 'Adrian Farrel' , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <000f01c88924$c2062630$330c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AciI9qTnueK1/nOeR/2D6Wd9mRLpawALgaug Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes for all four. draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Young -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:43 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:01:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EDA3A68B4 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:01:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tm-Z9QX95-m2 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F503A6BB4 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbmVc-0007s3-DW for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:50:24 +0000 Received: from [61.144.161.53] (helo=szxga01-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbmVY-0007qW-3J for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:50:23 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JXY0060QCZTXG@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:50:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JXY00FV4CZTTN@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:50:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from l37133 ([10.70.77.61]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JXY008L1CZTYD@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:50:17 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:50:17 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <015901c8895b$3353fa70$3d4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes! > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes! > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes! > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:43 PM Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds > Hi, > > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential > new working group I-Ds. > > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't > worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will > get to it by the end of the month. > > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged > to give reasons especially for negative responses). > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > > === > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:45:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F171C3A6E01 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:45:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3F-mhDaQhLls for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F6F3A6DF9 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbnGY-000JlB-JT for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:38:54 +0000 Received: from [202.112.26.52] (helo=mx2.sjtu.edu.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbnGV-000Jka-Gz for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:38:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53BC2A501; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:38:40 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sjtu.edu.cn Received: from mx2.sjtu.edu.cn ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.sjtu.edu.cn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id moPrO6xoCUL7; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:38:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from msc07ad750c26b (unknown [202.120.39.240]) (Authenticated sender: sunwq) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00AE2A434; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:38:39 +0800 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:36:20 +0800 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000001c88961$a3c30840$eb4918c0$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AciI+OoMoL0jDaTIQUK/fE1xtYFTBgAaG/tA Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, >draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes in favor as co-author. >draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes in favor. >draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes in favor. draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes in favor. Thanks, Weiqiang -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:43 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:59:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FDC3A68FE for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cKtI4WdweF0 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94B83A6857 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbnTT-000MHP-28 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:52:15 +0000 Received: from [2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84] (helo=mandala.kddilabs.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbnTQ-000MH1-9j for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:52:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A2EEC8E2 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:52:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail.cn.kddilabs.jp (yellow.lan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.98.10]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B54EC8E0 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:52:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c016.vpn.kddilabs.jp [172.19.87.16]) by mail.cn.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D011E0002 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:52:06 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47E071C7.9090709@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:52:07 +0900 From: Kenji Kumaki User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt I support it. Thanks, Kenji Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of > potential new working group I-Ds. > > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't > worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We > will get to it by the end of the month. > > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are > encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > > === > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:26:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335053A6994 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:26:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwAE41y3m79M for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9F53A69CD for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbon8-000A2v-GX for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:16:38 +0000 Received: from [61.144.161.54] (helo=szxga02-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbon5-000A2d-Vd for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:16:37 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JXY0095YJRLQC@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.186]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JXY00I1YJRKXG@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:33 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:32 +0800 From: Mach Chen Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , "ccamp@ops.ietf.org" Message-id: <200803191116321569327@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 6, 10, 201, 20 [cn] Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, In favor of all four I-Ds. On 2008-03-18, at 20:50:23 Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential >new working group I-Ds. > >We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't >worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will >get to it by the end of the month. > >Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged >to give reasons especially for negative responses). > >Thanks, >Adrian and Deborah > >=== > >draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt >draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt >draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt >draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > Best regards, Mach Chen From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 21:10:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F033A6A7A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:10:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdNlm9iMloqZ for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36ABD3A6879 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbpVo-000GoJ-BC for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:02:48 +0000 Received: from [168.127.0.56] (helo=fncnmp03.fnc.fujitsu.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbpVl-000Go0-IO for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:02:46 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,522,1199685600"; d="scan'208";a="325318459" Received: from rchemx01.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.104]) by fncnmp01.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2008 23:02:45 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:02:44 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47DFD8A9.9010509@lab.ntt.co.jp> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Thread-Index: AciJCNan2r/h3YvLThO+vyJjGH1AaQAAENSA From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto" , "Adrian Farrel" Cc: "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" , "Ccamp (E-mail)" Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Adrian and Kohei, Thanks for your response.=20 So I believe we have a couple of alternatives to establish the client = layer interface: 1. Extend the VCAT layer call mechanism 2. Signal a VCAT layer LSP to trigger the creation of an = LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE So either way we have a single client layer interface which represents a = set of inversely multiplexed server layer LSPs. I am not sure if this aspect is described in the VCAT ID, does it make = sense to add this type of information? Regards, Snigdho -----Original Message----- From: Kohei Shiomoto [mailto:shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:59 AM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Bardalai, Snigdho; Greg Bernstein (E-mail); Ccamp (E-mail) Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Hi, Snigdho Thank you for your question. I agree with Adrian. Hierarchy bis describes, when a LSP is dynamically created, the ingress=20 LSP may indicates the LSP is advertised or used to carry traffic. We=20 consider the bundling link composed of component links in this draft.But = VCAT connection is not a bundled link. Call concept are used to a VCAT connection, which is composed of=20 multiple co-signaled member sets.How to advertise a link composed of the = VCG can be developed in the context of call concept to avoid=20 intermediate layer. But we do not have to exclude use of the same=20 mechanism defined in hierarchy-bis for this purpose. Best regards, Kohei > Hi, > > IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. > > Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may=20 > indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a=20 > link in some specific network layer. > > LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped=20 > together and the whole group is used as a link in another network = layer. > > So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange=20 > information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client=20 > layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the = > architecture) one might have three layers to consider... > > - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs > - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between > VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT > layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should > be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. > - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of > the VCAT layer LSP. > > Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be=20 > considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture=20 > defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them=20 > explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide=20 > the coordination with the client layer direct. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho"=20 > > To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg=20 > Bernstein (E-mail)" > Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)"=20 > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM > Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP > > > Hello Kohei and Greg, > > I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet)=20 > over VCAT server layer resources. > >> From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not=20 >> clear how=20 > will this exactly work. > > For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1=20 > LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would=20 > appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth=20 > capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which=20 > LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I=20 > think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent=20 > to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. > > Is there a defined way of handling this situation? > > Thanks, > Snigdho > > > > --=20 Kohei Shiomoto, Ph.D Senior Research Engineer, Supervisor, Group Leader NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories http://www.ntt.co.jp/islab/org/ns.html 3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone +81 422 59 4402 Fax +81 422 59 3787 Free online contents of "NTT Technical Review" available at https://www.ntt-review.jp/ From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 01:37:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F653A6BFA for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:37:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xtlNhcANayro for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C7D3A6C0F for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbtei-000EIA-Ud for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:28:16 +0000 Received: from [195.250.30.2] (helo=chef.nextworks.it) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbteg-000EHY-6n for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:28:15 +0000 Received: from [131.114.33.165] (scratchy.meta.cpr.it [131.114.33.165]) by chef.nextworks.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEC57BD51; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:29:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47E0CE9A.8090503@cpr.it> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:28:10 +0100 From: Gino Carrozzo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070730) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 01:53:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CBC3A6957 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:53:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 240XO9mEnYH8 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9553A6BB4 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbttY-000GXR-MD for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:43:36 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbttV-000GWe-MF for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:43:35 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BA6962023E; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:30 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aa991bb000004ec0-c9-47e0d232b196 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A3443200FF; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.77]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:30 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:21 +0100 Message-ID: <56D2F550769FAA4CA70D5B2EB8419F1402F1B0B4@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+b1IMLdlVtvmTPOyZmq7LDNEPQAo29sw References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Howard Green" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 08:43:30.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EB8BDE0:01C8899D] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk In favour for all 4=20 Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 18 March 2008 13:43 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list=20 > of potential new working group I-Ds. >=20 > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own=20 > sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first=20 > (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. >=20 > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You=20 > are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 02:06:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BA83A696C for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:06:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVHFP2zASOVS for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABB53A6AAD for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbu8i-000JU6-62 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:16 +0000 Received: from [156.54.233.32] (helo=mailf.telecomitalia.it) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbu8f-000JTF-AP for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:14 +0000 Received: from ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.52]) by mailf.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:59:01 +0100 Received: from PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.227]) by ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:59:00 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2992 Importance: normal Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: <9E577E61D0108D4F8CD482029B613F5C02A12CFE@PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+PTpUCOMMgwSTwuMbrCWqOFLyAApYzDQ From: "Capello Alessandro" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 08:59:00.0642 (UTC) FILETIME=[79359820:01C8899F] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes Regards, Alessandro -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons = above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the = message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is = prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the = message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to = webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 05:39:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63163A6C0F for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kmCE9ABsmRM for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF6A3A6AE7 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbxPE-0000Zs-68 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:28:32 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbxP6-0000Yk-JQ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:28:30 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8434F20194; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:28:22 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ad997bb000004ec0-21-47e106e60262 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 69AC520146; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:28:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:28:21 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E91026247E0@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+b3zw4Uj8M4JTOGHGlY3jKcg+wAwk2Lg References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 12:28:21.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[B85C41D0:01C889BC] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it be just informational? > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes. > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes. Best regards, Attila From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 06:07:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6194E3A6CB3 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwZVWdLXaplP for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB393A67F7 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbxoh-0005di-Ci for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:51 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbxoS-0005Ta-QA for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:42 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2008 05:54:36 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2JCsY6u005772; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:54:34 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2JCsSfQ008274; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:34 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.25]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:54:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:54:33 -0400 Message-ID: <0590495B8B6352449CE2CE5E8AAE67F1A3D9FB@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9o985CEXojQETo6MztmTfrpWFgAybl6g From: "Rich Bradford (rbradfor)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 12:54:34.0305 (UTC) FILETIME=[61876B10:01C889C0] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=66; t=1205931275; x=1206795275; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rbradfor@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rich=20Bradford=20(rbradfor)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20; bh=ZjXfq7TWeGsf4jFn4FHztP/yj8057XcZVEBfLp431oA=; b=E5bA267ysKuXjrh8hPVex9NPqXCw9hgwwF2oF/m7FtuBJdIAfcOJFz1mAg VncEtNHPTlG6MYtG+Zpd+PIIs+CrLuEUNT27N29ChsA9iKM/Ik33QfpB8nOc ziJq9/xjdq5Kl7XJvLci6O7WdAsyzxs6BPZQml2dHy5fhmMCobP4M=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=rbradfor@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In Favor, co-author. From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 07:32:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB053A6C69 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:32:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sUhrNGbMgdLX for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59173A6CFA for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbzAL-000MEu-HZ for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:21:17 +0000 Received: from [168.127.0.56] (helo=fncnmp03.fnc.fujitsu.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JbzAI-000MEC-C0 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:21:16 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,524,1199685600"; d="scan'208";a="325788249" Received: from rchemx01.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.104]) by fncnmp01.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2008 09:21:13 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9vl3091Hvip4TcqR06KgfiiDIgA1WT4A From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk In favour of: draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt (co-author) draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt (co-author) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:43 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of = potential=20 new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't=20 worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We = will=20 get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are = encouraged=20 to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah =3D=3D=3D draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 09:32:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4673A6F22 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.017 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.089, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2NrUkSnKrgu for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D0E3A696F for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc15R-000JVD-Ks for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:21 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc15O-000JUt-O8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:20 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2JGOFnT032150; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:15 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2JGODmD032074; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:14 GMT Message-ID: <073c01c889dd$aa511f40$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Attila Takacs" , References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E91026247E0@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Subject: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:05 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Attila wrote >> draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it > be just informational? Yse, I agree. Actually, there are one or two IETF-culture things to tweak in this I-D, and I prpose to give the authors a little help if we agree to take it into CCAMP. Cheers, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 10:42:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79DD3A6EBF for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.145 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifFnKzivXWup for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032683A6B1C for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc26o-0004wP-1F for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:29:50 +0000 Received: from [195.101.245.16] (helo=p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc26l-0004rY-1A for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:29:48 +0000 Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:29:28 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:29:28 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605689418@ftrdmel2> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9/9FdAK4C8JARcWe4Wy59GG61wA7hBlQ References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 17:29:28.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9163BA0:01C889E6] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi all. draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt -> Yes, this work is interesting. draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt -> Yes, this is an appropriate answer to the requirements. draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt -> Yes, this is a key feature. draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt -> Yes, I confirm this is useful (but I'm co-author). Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of = potential=20 new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't=20 worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We = will=20 get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are = encouraged=20 to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah =3D=3D=3D draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:11:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B7928C640 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.068 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.038, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-afseD0R5oA for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27C128C6CB for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc2aR-000Bmh-VN for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:27 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jc2aL-000Blb-9D for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:23 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2JI0J3R026935 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:19 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2JI0Go0026891 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:18 GMT Message-ID: <078801c889eb$159a4210$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Working group last calls: Inter-AS TE link advertisement Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, This email begins a three week working group last call on: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-00.txt This last call will be advertised to the MPLS working group and to the OSPF and ISIS working groups as appropriate. The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008. Please send your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 23:32:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BCA3A6C14 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i+oKUaIbOvf9 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CD23A6D3F for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcEBG-000GUp-45 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:23:14 +0000 Received: from [202.112.26.52] (helo=mx2.sjtu.edu.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcEBB-000GTx-SK for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:23:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279B5298DE; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:59 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sjtu.edu.cn Received: from mx2.sjtu.edu.cn ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.sjtu.edu.cn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m0pXS2SbP7y1; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from msc07ad750c26b (unknown [202.120.39.240]) (Authenticated sender: sunwq) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id E646728F44; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:57 +0800 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , "'Attila Takacs'" , References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E91026247E0@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> <073c01c889dd$aa511f40$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <073c01c889dd$aa511f40$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Subject: RE: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:48 +0800 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000d01c88a52$d1b5e7d0$7521b770$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AciJ31eSBenm1irJQ3CtD5d4hhRqKwAWljrw Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Attila and Adrian, Thanks for the comments. Our knowledge of the performance metrics and related methodologies has largely come from existing and ongoing documents, as well as some discussions in a discussion group. For your reference, I listed below a few examples that put the PM docs in the standard category: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2679.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-03.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt Also, there are a few other similar ones developed as informational docs: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-06.txt Personally, I think it is more appropriate to put the doc in the standard track, since it proposes not only the metrics and motivations, but the methodologies as well. The methodologies can be implementation references for certain users of the metrics, such as online measurement entities and testing devices. So far this doc has been developing in a discussion group and also in an offline manner. We expect to receive more feedbacks from the WG as we are settling down with the motivations, and can thus be more focused on metrics and methodologies. Also, we will try to solicit comments from other related WGs such as PMOL, BMWG and IPPM. It is indeed a wonderful idea to develop this document under the guidance of CCAMP experts and also with the support from performance metrics experts. Cheers, Weiqiang -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:24 AM To: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Attila wrote >> draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it > be just informational? Yse, I agree. Actually, there are one or two IETF-culture things to tweak in this I-D, and I prpose to give the authors a little help if we agree to take it into CCAMP. Cheers, Adrian From vjqimpossible@hardcode.com Thu Mar 20 07:14:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6F128C31D; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:14:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.426 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z54vkLKEg4J1; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from customer-ay2rzf.yunjo1213 (unknown [211.38.222.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B537228C56C; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from customeray2rzf ([86.74.251.241]:25415 "HELO customeray2rzf" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 6de26d3hardcode.com with ESMTP id 4251640818573 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:12:18 +0900 Message-ID: <001401c88adf$d7f5f620$02267ca4@customeray2rzf> From: Arthur To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: be okay Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:12:18 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C88ADF.D7F5F620" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.3000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2969 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C88ADF.D7F5F620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable can assist advertising and marketing tactics. Business can use breakthrough will most definitely impact further studies into peoples' sens= es of self and creativity. While someone is probably ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C88ADF.D7F5F620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
to computers - to the bright colors, movement and sound emote

C A 4N A D/8AN P 6 7H A RM A 3CY

V/A \G _RA - $1.46

C 5/ A L / S - $2.21

S0 O M A - $0.63

L E4 V / T R A - $3.61

FEMALE V/AG\ R -A - $1.59

U 3 L T 1R A M - $1.39

168 Items on Sale Today.

Pay = today get it tomorrow

coffee makers, VCRS and camcorders. The computer will have more
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C88ADF.D7F5F620-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 07:19:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64B23A69FD for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LZradj2oBysP for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B04728C4F2 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcLP9-000Hnj-Fq for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:06:03 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcLP1-000Hm1-Qh for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:06:01 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2KE5kfA029865; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:05:47 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2KE5iWF029834; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:05:46 GMT Message-ID: <08ec01c88a93$7c7f1cf0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Tomohiro Otani" , "Masanori Miyazawa" , "Tom Nadeau" Cc: Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-03.txt Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:05:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, In Philadelphia we discussed the next steps for this document and agreed that it is probably ready for a MIB Doctor review. I thought that I should have another look at it before we send it off. Major issues 1. Need to pick up boilerpate sections as per RFC 4181 In particular, the security sections are needed. 2. I *think* that index values should be "not-accessible" rather than "read-only". 3. Need to check the MIB with smilint using smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/ I get the following errors: mibs/ted.my:43: [3] {revision-missing} revision for last update is missing mibs/ted.my:43: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `xxx' name only allowed as first element mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:851: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group `tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in this module 4. Should we have two conformance statements? One for MPLS-TE and one for GMPLS? 5. I believe you should use InetAddress and InetAddressType from RFC 4001 instead of IpAddress. We need to support IPv6 6. Looks like the whole MIB module is read-only. Does that mean that "manually configured" table entries cannot be configured through the MIB? If that is your intention (i.e. that configuration is made only through other mechanisms) I think you should discuss this in the text. 7. I think that teSwitchingType and teEncoding need to be extensible. And it would be useful to be consistent between routing and signaling. Please consider using IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC and IANAGmplsLSPEncodingTypeTC from IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib Less major points - Title needs to be updated to include MPLS-TE - I wonder if it is worth also including the IGP metric in this table. I know it is a duplication of information, but it is useful for TE processing - It would be nice to include a simple example - teIndication could use a reference to help people understand the usage. Actually, it wouldn't hurt to include more references for all objects. - You should also reference and think about OSPFv3 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt There are some nits... - Tom is now with BT - In teLinkStateId s/jndicates/indicates/ - [RFC2119] only needs to appear in section 9 once - You shouldn't list RFC1850. It is obsolete. You should also clean up the nits shown by idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) I see the following errors: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 updated by RFC 4748 (on line 1204), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 text on line 231. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC3410' is mentioned on line 75, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'OSPF-MIB' is mentioned on line 389, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ISIS-MIB' is mentioned on line 393, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'MPLS OAM' is defined on line 1130, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 1134, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1850 (Obsoleted by RFC 4750) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements has been published as RFC 4377 If you can work on these issues, we'll take the I-D to the MIB Doctor. Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:21:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EE53A6DD2 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LACliay-uPk9 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF90F3A6DB6 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcnZF-0006tD-6a for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:21 +0000 Received: from [47.129.242.57] (helo=zcars04f.nortel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcnZC-0006sV-4K for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:19 +0000 Received: from zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.51]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m2LKACs07715; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:12 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA4142A61B6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4A References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Adrian > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt OK Informational > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a definition. =20 > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt yes From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:44:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220FA28C5DA for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.975 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bU9SY6xA8lFF for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB8128C88E for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcqjO-000N59-TC for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:33:02 +0000 Received: from [128.9.168.207] (helo=bosco.isi.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcqjM-000N4k-CL for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:33:01 +0000 Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 155F8120686; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5145 on Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20080321233300.155F8120686@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5145 Title: Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration Author: K. Shiomoto, Ed. Status: Informational Date: March 2008 Mailbox: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Pages: 19 Characters: 44646 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5145.txt The migration from Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is the process of evolving an MPLS-TE control plane to a GMPLS control plane. An appropriate migration strategy will be selected based on various factors including the service provider's network deployment plan, customer demand, and operational policy. This document presents several migration models and strategies for migrating from MPLS-TE to GMPLS. In the course of migration, MPLS-TE and GMPLS devices, or networks, may coexist that may require interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols. Aspects of the required interworking are discussed as it will influence the choice of a migration strategy. This framework document provides a migration toolkit to aid the operator in selection of an appropriate strategy. This framework document also lists a set of solutions that may aid in interworking, and highlights a set of potential issues. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:44:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981923A6E11 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erX1miRxTkXo for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF783A6E1B for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jcqjo-000N8x-8q for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:33:28 +0000 Received: from [128.9.168.207] (helo=bosco.isi.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jcqjl-000N8M-RD for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:33:26 +0000 Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id AD37A120688; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:25 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5146 on Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20080321233325.AD37A120688@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5146 Title: Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks Author: K. Kumaki, Ed. Status: Informational Date: March 2008 Mailbox: ke-kumaki@kddi.com Pages: 15 Characters: 31624 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5146.txt Operation of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineering (TE) network as a client network to a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network has enhanced operational capabilities compared to those provided by a coexistent protocol model (i.e., operation of MPLS-TE over an independently managed transport layer). The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet technologies. An MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP. This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 06:27:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0AE3A692B for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wG4ENVEGWm2E for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B920E3A67DD for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jd3V2-000AKC-Di for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:11:04 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.230] (helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jd3Uz-000AJV-4h for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:11:02 +0000 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m2MDAu9i018293; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:10:57 +0200 Received: from mail pickup service by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:05:21 +0200 Received: from mgw-mx01.nokia.com ([192.100.122.228]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:25:26 +0200 Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by mgw-mx01.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m2LKPMIO018901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:25:25 +0200 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcnZF-0006tD-6a for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:21 +0000 Received: from [47.129.242.57] (helo=zcars04f.nortel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JcnZC-0006sV-4K for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:19 +0000 Received: from zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.51]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m2LKACs07715; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:10:12 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA4142A61B6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4A References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "ext Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-pstn-spam: N X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2008 20:25:26.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2FD6990:01C88B91] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Adrian > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt OK Informational > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a definition. =20 > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt yes From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 05:41:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B9B28C2B6 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 05:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.299, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GMRB2eYKsuyK for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 05:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA9E28C183 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 05:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JdPFu-000Fjn-TW for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:24:54 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JdPFr-000Fik-SH for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:24:53 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2NCOnOB023516 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:24:50 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2NCOmmZ023508 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:24:49 GMT Message-ID: <0c8e01c88ce0$e17df370$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Draft minutes posted Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:23:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Draft minutes are posted at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/ccamp.htm Many thanks to note takers: - Greg Bernstein - Lyndon Ong - Martin Vigoureux Please send in any comments or updates. Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 15:40:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F25E3A6876 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AyV6psXkz8J for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1C73A6AC1 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jdv9A-000DNe-Oo for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:28:04 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jdv97-000DNH-Sy for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:28:03 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 673473A6DBB; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Message-Id: <20080324223001.673473A6DBB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Analysis of Inter-domain Label Switched Path (LSP) Recovery Author(s) : T. Takeda Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2008-3-24 This document analyzes various schemes to realize Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) recovery in multi-domain networks based on the existing framework for multi-domain LSPs. The main focus for this document is on establishing end-to-end diverse Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs in multi-domain networks. It presents various diverse LSP setup schemes based on existing functional elements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-3-24152143.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 01:23:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AB53A68E0 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lly6PBYfiRwV for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90F13A68D3 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je4Dz-000HM0-IC for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:09:39 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je4Dv-000HLF-K5 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:09:37 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 731CA21335; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:01:58 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aa991bb000004ec0-b8-47e8b176533b Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6259821347; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:01:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:01:57 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:01:54 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF6840134D944@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA4142A61B6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4AALBmsHA= From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "ext Don Fedyk" , "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2008 08:01:57.0959 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F9C1D70:01C88E4E] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Don, I'll remove the g in the next version of the ID. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Don Fedyk > Sent: venerd=EC 21 marzo 2008 21.10 > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi Adrian >=20 > >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > OK Informational > > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a > definition. =20 > > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > yes > > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > yes >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 04:42:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C7E3A6EDA for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1q0GakbfBFk7 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AC828C0D9 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je7JR-000KhA-Jq for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:27:29 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je7J0-000KZJ-70 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:27:08 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2PBQViv026926; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:31 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2PBQRTg026876; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:29 GMT Message-ID: <0ed601c88e6b$0db72390$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Jonathan Sadler" , "Lyndon Ong" , "Stephen Shew" , , "Ross Callon" , "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Subject: RFC 4258 bis Design Team Formed Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi CCAMP, We have three volunteers to do the heavy lifting for the proposed revision of RFC 4258. They are: Jonathan Sadler Stephen Shew Lyndon Ong Thanks to them for taking this on. Below is a rough charter for their work. A dedicated IETF mailing list will be set up soon for the discussion of this work, and we will circulate the subscription details. 1. An IETF design team is just a group of people working together with a common goal. People may join or leave the team. You are encouraged to limit the team to the people who actively contribute text to the Internet- Draft you are producing. Review and discussion of your work should be held in a wider forum. Other teams may be set up with the same or similar objectives. 2. Your objective is to produce a revision of RFC 4258 in an Internet-Draft called draft-xxxx-ccamp-rfc4258bis-00.txt. You may entirely rewrite RFC 4258 or re-use text as appropriate. Your output, if eventually published as an RFC, will obsolete RFC 4258. 3. The purpose of the revision is to fully capture all of the ASON routing requirements expressed in current ITU-T Recommendations and express them in IETF routing terminology such that they can be understood and implemented within the IETF. Each requirement must be shown with full traceability back to its statement in an ITU-T Recommendation. 4. You should take care to fully credit the original authors of RFC 4258. 5. At this stage, your charter does not extend beyond the ASON routing requirements (i.e. the revision of RFC 4258). If this work is successful and demonstrates a need, future work may be chartered to revise RFC 4652 to examine how existing IETF routing protocols can be used to meet the requirements expressed in your new work. 6. You should use Adrian Farrel as your IETF process adviser. 7. A dedicated IETF mailing list will be established for public discussion of your work. You do not need to hold all discussions of your draft on this list, but you are encouraged to have as many debates (even between yourselves) in this forum. 8. You should work to the following timeline. March 2008 Design Team formed May 2008 Publish the -00 revision of your I-D Initiate discussions on your mailing list June 2008 Publish the -01 revision of your I-D Continue discussions on your mailing list July 2008 Present the -01 revision (or later) of your I-D at the CCAMP session of the Dublin IETF meeting August 2008 Adopt draft as a CCAMP working group draft Discuss on CCAMP mailing list Move rapidly to CCAMP working group last call We wish them well. Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 05:08:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9573A6872 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.923, BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h+Q8lPQRi0l2 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2CA3A6BF9 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je7ma-0001Dx-F8 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:57:36 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Je7kD-0000W4-40 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:55:31 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2PBt319008868 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:55:04 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2PBt11a008751 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:55:03 GMT Message-ID: <0eec01c88e6f$0b88d510$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Approved Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:52:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Looks like we have enough support and no objections for the following I-Ds. Authors: please submit the drafts. Please don't forget to use idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) to check that your I-Ds are formatted OK. > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt (Note the "g" is deleted) > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 11:35:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0593A6F16 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvdNClfWHZLN for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221E23A6D49 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeDpe-000MMT-SP for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:25:10 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeDpV-000MIF-IR for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:25:06 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2PIOfxQ030584; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:41 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2PIOapH030525; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:39 GMT Message-ID: <00d301c88ea5$776e6250$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Mach Chen" Subject: WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Here are a few very minor review comments. It is probable that similar comments apply to the ISIS draft. Can you check? Thanks, Adrian === Header s/Network work group/Network working group/ Please show names as "M. Chen" === Abstract s/Engineering(TE)/Engineering (TE)/ s/information from other outside the AS/information from outside the AS/ === OSPFv3-TE I am currently trying to close an issue down with the OSPF WG chairs and the ADs. Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as requested by the OSPF working group. This means that you are correct to have the OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative reference. However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in the OSPF working group where: - the draft has just expired - there is more than one implementation - there are no known deployments - no interop testing has been done This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not advance for some time and might leave your draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. I will update the working group as we make progress on this issue. === Section 2.1 s/excluded.:/excluded:/ === Section 2.2 s/PATH/Path/ x2 s/Section 4.0/Section 4./ === Section 2.3 s/TE link is particular/TE link is particularly/ === Section 3.1.1 s/network-wide policy choice/AS-wide policy choice/ === Section 3.2 s/Both/Both the/ === Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 Please include a forward reference to Section 6.2 when you discuss the TLV type assignment and mention IANA. === Section 4 s/link , the ASBR/link, the ASBR/ s/consequently , an/consequently, an/ s/considering here(i.e.,/considering here (i.e.,/ === Section 6.1 Please separate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 assignments into separate paragraphs (or sections). Please reference the IANA registries by name "Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" for OSPFv2, and "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" with sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" for OSPFv3. === Section 8.2 [PD-PATH] is now RFC 5152 === From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 18:52:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967A03A682E for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:52:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4aMao08ULRw7 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973503A68DA for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeKeP-000JMM-LW for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:42:01 +0000 Received: from [61.144.161.55] (helo=szxga03-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeKeM-000JKS-S8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:42:00 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JYB00CBGE1WAW@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:41:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.186]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JYB00DTUE1Q1K@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:41:56 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:41:51 +0800 From: Mach Chen Subject: Re: WG last call comments ondraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt To: Adrian Farrel Cc: "ccamp@ops.ietf.org" Message-id: <200803260941492626553@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 6, 10, 201, 20 [cn] Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00d301c88ea5$776e6250$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Adrian, Thanks for your useful comments, the next revision will be updated according to your comments ASAP. Best regards, Mach On 2008-03-26, at 02:28:09 Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >Here are a few very minor review comments. >It is probable that similar comments apply to the ISIS draft. Can you check? > >Thanks, >Adrian >=== >Header >s/Network work group/Network working group/ >Please show names as "M. Chen" >=== >Abstract >s/Engineering(TE)/Engineering (TE)/ >s/information from other outside the AS/information from outside the AS/ >=== >OSPFv3-TE >I am currently trying to close an issue down with the OSPF WG chairs and the >ADs. >Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as requested by the OSPF working >group. >This means that you are correct to have the OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative >reference. >However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in the OSPF working group where: >- the draft has just expired >- there is more than one implementation >- there are no known deployments >- no interop testing has been done >This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not advance for some time and >might leave your draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. >I will update the working group as we make progress on this issue. >=== >Section 2.1 >s/excluded.:/excluded:/ >=== >Section 2.2 >s/PATH/Path/ x2 >s/Section 4.0/Section 4./ >=== >Section 2.3 >s/TE link is particular/TE link is particularly/ >=== >Section 3.1.1 >s/network-wide policy choice/AS-wide policy choice/ >=== >Section 3.2 >s/Both/Both the/ >=== >Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 >Please include a forward reference to Section 6.2 when you discuss the TLV >type assignment and mention IANA. >=== >Section 4 >s/link , the ASBR/link, the ASBR/ >s/consequently , an/consequently, an/ >s/considering here(i.e.,/considering here (i.e.,/ >=== >Section 6.1 >Please separate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 assignments into separate paragraphs >(or sections). >Please reference the IANA registries by name "Opaque Link-State >Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" for OSPFv2, and "Open Shortest Path First >v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" with sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" for >OSPFv3. >=== >Section 8.2 >[PD-PATH] is now RFC 5152 >=== > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 00:52:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EC93A6BFF for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:52:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBjIdjGpj7MQ for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F233A6D7F for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeQHn-000LTm-6u for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:43:03 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeQHj-000LTO-S3 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:43:01 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 90C6E28C4FA; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Message-Id: <20080326074501.90C6E28C4FA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks Author(s) : W. Sun, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2008-03-26 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most promising candidate technologies for the future data transmission network. The GMPLS has been developed to control and cooperate different kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add- Drop Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro area. As different applications have varied requirements in the provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other. This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks, specifically the dynamical LSP setup/release performance. These metrics can depict the features of the GMPLS network in LSP dynamic provisioning. They can also be used in operational networks for carriers to monitor the control plane performance in realtime. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-26004245.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 02:11:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE123A6CEF for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:11:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.818 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aJhsdc8VtOp for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A744D28C534 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeRTr-0006zm-SD for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:59:35 +0000 Received: from [202.28.162.2] (helo=saturn.mahidol.ac.th) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeRTj-0006vF-LY for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:59:34 +0000 Received: from saturn.mahidol.ac.th (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by saturn.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2Q8vlpZ013360; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:57:47 +0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by saturn.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m2Q8vktJ013359; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:57:46 +0700 Received: from mail.mahidol.ac.th (mail.mahidol.ac.th [202.28.162.18]) by saturn.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2Q7pUUd000758 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:51:30 +0700 Received: from mucc.mahidol.ac.th (mucc.mahidol.ac.th [202.28.162.3]) by mail.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id m2Q7pUuO029790 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:51:30 +0700 Received: by mucc.mahidol.ac.th (Postfix) id 792C5130EB1; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:47:42 +0700 (ICT) Delivered-To: ccvvs@mucc.mahidol.ac.th Received: from ns1.mahidol.ac.th (ns1.mahidol.ac.th [202.28.162.1]) by mucc.mahidol.ac.th (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9D9130EB0 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:47:42 +0700 (ICT) Received: from muscan1.mahidol.ac.th (muscan.mahidol.ac.th [202.28.162.15]) by ns1.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m2Q7pU1i027300 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:51:30 +0700 Received: from 202.28.172.3 by muscan1.mahidol.ac.th (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:51:42 +0700 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by mailmx2.mahidol.ac.th (8.13.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2Q7j2ux014831 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:45:04 +0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37F728C539; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8pW9IgVew8m; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2796528C50D; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Delivered-To: i-d-announce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 90C6E28C4FA; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Message-Id: <20080326074501.90C6E28C4FA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: Internet Draft Announcements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X--MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X--MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X--MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=0.67, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, EMPTY_MESSAGE 2.31, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96) X--MailScanner-From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-mahidol_ac_th-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-mahidol_ac_th-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.639, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96, SPF_HELO_PASS -0.00) X-mahidol_ac_th-MailScanner-From: root@saturn.mahidol.ac.th Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks Author(s) : W. Sun, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2008-03-26 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most promising candidate technologies for the future data transmission network. The GMPLS has been developed to control and cooperate different kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add- Drop Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro area. As different applications have varied requirements in the provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other. This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks, specifically the dynamical LSP setup/release performance. These metrics can depict the features of the GMPLS network in LSP dynamic provisioning. They can also be used in operational networks for carriers to monitor the control plane performance in realtime. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-26004245.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 10:58:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6CD28C2C7 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.739, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sz6eUf7L-ahC for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C57D28C329 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeZen-000LoM-QO for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:43:25 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeZeh-000LnG-W3 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:43:21 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2QHhB8A032135; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:43:14 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2QHh8ZR032119; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:43:09 GMT Message-ID: <01e801c88f68$d67d3640$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Mach Chen" , References: <00d301c88ea5$776e6250$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <200803260941492626553@huawei.com> Subject: Update: WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:42:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="GB2312"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, Just to give you an update on the dependency on OSPFv3-TE. The ADs and OSPF working group chairs have agreed to re-submit the OSPFv3-TE draft and to last call it in the OSPF working group. We can expect this to happen fairly soon (the I-D is already re-submitted) so it is OK for this CCAMP draft to keep its normative reference to the OSPFv3-TE draft. The worst that will happen is that our draft will be held up in the RFC Editor's queue for a few extra weeks. Adrian >>OSPFv3-TE >> I am currently trying to close an issue down >> with the OSPF WG chairs and the ADs. >> Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as >> requested by the OSPF working group. >> This means that you are correct to have the >> OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative reference. >> However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in >> the OSPF working group where: >> - the draft has just expired >> - there is more than one implementation >> - there are no known deployments >> - no interop testing has been done >> This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not >> advance for some time and might leave your >> draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. >> I will update the working group as we make >> progress on this issue. From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:54:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1074B3A6F98 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:54:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxYYpGvJkKg0 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E866828C7FD for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JegCu-000Ekp-QU for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:43:04 +0000 Received: from [2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84] (helo=mandala.kddilabs.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JegCr-000EkI-Hb for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:43:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D01EC938; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4701EC934; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp195.wlan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.110.195]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64118578111; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:55 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47EAED8C.5010704@kddilabs.jp> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:52 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Masanori Miyazawa , Tom Nadeau , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-03.txt References: <08ec01c88a93$7c7f1cf0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <08ec01c88a93$7c7f1cf0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Adrian, Thank you for your comments. We will work for it and update the draft=20 shortly. Regards, tomo Adrian Farrel =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3=81=BE=E3=81= =97=E3=81=9F: > Hi, > In Philadelphia we discussed the next steps for this document and=20 > agreed that it is probably ready for a MIB Doctor review. I thought=20 > that I should have another look at it before we send it off. > > Major issues > 1. Need to pick up boilerpate sections as per RFC 4181 > In particular, the security sections are needed. > 2. I *think* that index values should be "not-accessible" > rather than "read-only". > 3. Need to check the MIB with smilint using > smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 > See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/ > I get the following errors: > mibs/ted.my:43: [3] {revision-missing} revision for last update is=20 > missing > mibs/ted.my:43: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier=20 > element `xxx' name only allowed as first element > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:851: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group=20 > `tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in this module > 4. Should we have two conformance statements? One for > MPLS-TE and one for GMPLS? > 5. I believe you should use InetAddress and InetAddressType > from RFC 4001 instead of IpAddress. We need to support > IPv6 > 6. Looks like the whole MIB module is read-only. Does that > mean that "manually configured" table entries cannot be > configured through the MIB? If that is your intention (i.e. > that configuration is made only through other mechanisms) > I think you should discuss this in the text. > 7. I think that teSwitchingType and teEncoding need to be > extensible. And it would be useful to be consistent > between routing and signaling. Please consider using > IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC and > IANAGmplsLSPEncodingTypeTC from > IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. See > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib > > > > Less major points > - Title needs to be updated to include MPLS-TE > - I wonder if it is worth also including the IGP metric > in this table. I know it is a duplication of information, > but it is useful for TE processing > - It would be nice to include a simple example > - teIndication could use a reference to help people > understand the usage. > Actually, it wouldn't hurt to include more references > for all objects. > - You should also reference and think about OSPFv3 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt > > There are some nits... > - Tom is now with BT > - In teLinkStateId s/jndicates/indicates/ > - [RFC2119] only needs to appear in section 9 once > - You shouldn't list RFC1850. It is obsolete. > > > You should also clean up the nits shown by idnits=20 > (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) > I see the following errors: > Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748= : > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 updated = by > RFC 4748 (on line 1204), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 3978 > Section 5.4 paragraph 1 text on line 231. > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the=20 > document. > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the=20 > longest one > being 1 character in excess of 72. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > No issues found here. > > Checking references for intended status: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'RFC3410' is mentioned on line 75, but not de= fined > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'OSPF-MIB' is mentioned on line 389, but not=20 > defined > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'ISIS-MIB' is mentioned on line 393, but not=20 > defined > > =3D=3D Unused Reference: 'MPLS OAM' is defined on line 1130, but no exp= licit > reference was found in the text > > =3D=3D Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 1134, but no expl= icit > reference was found in the text > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1850 > (Obsoleted by RFC 4750) > > =3D=3D Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements has been=20 > published > as RFC 4377 > > > > If you can work on these issues, we'll take the I-D to the MIB Doctor. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 08:35:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429403A7019 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:35:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcP9IHPCZqUU for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548B83A6862 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JetnP-000A2O-RQ for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:39 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JetnI-000A1C-KQ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:34 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id BE35D3A6FEB; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Message-Id: <20080327151502.BE35D3A6FEB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link Management Protocol Author(s) : D. Li, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2008-03-27 This document defines simple additions to the Link Management Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm Li Expires September 2008 [page 1] draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt March 2008 data channel statuses, and provides triggers for notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-27080429.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 10:08:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1076228C49A for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E1M4tZnH6Ewh for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8D13A6E42 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JevR3-0001dZ-Qo for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:58:41 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JevQq-0001bX-Ro for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:58:36 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 2A6D13A6A42; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Message-Id: <20080327170001.2A6D13A6A42@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support Author(s) : R. Bradford, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2008-03-27 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs). Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate, with each responsible for computing a segment of the path. To preserve confidentiality of topology with each AS, the PCE supports a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path Key Subobject (PKS). This document describes the addition of this information to Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) signaling by inclusion in the Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-27095524.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From cimmass@cmi.com Thu Mar 27 13:30:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B473A6AE6; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.97 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_HU=1.35, HOST_EQ_BROADBND=1.118, HOST_EQ_HU=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_GREY=0.25] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdgUnjr09n2w; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d-63f6714b53b94.chello.hu (catv-59846dd9.catv.broadband.hu [89.132.109.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C01053A6AA0; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d63f6714b53b94 ([95.91.187.169]) by d96d8459cmi.com with ESMTP id 99405A14943962 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c89051$6e9ddf90$00b8cc0c@d63f6714b53b94> From: contribute he To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: you hold Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:28:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C89051.6E9DDF90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.1106 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C89051.6E9DDF90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable condition I call hyper-awareness. Anything and everything my five people and the Earth in shitty positions eg. poverty are in Billy experiments with his cordless 'phone, he learns to make ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C89051.6E9DDF90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
to another. In most cases the cyberart will be presented to the
<= BR>
C A 6N A D/7AN P 0 7H A RM A 0CY

V/A \G _RA - $1.41

C 8/ A L / S - $2.22

S2 O M A - $0.66

L E7 V / T R A - $3.65

FEMALE V-AGR -A - $1.57

U 7 L T 6R A M - $1.36

177 Items on Sale Today.

Fast shipping in stock now

their own space when it can be absolutely any space at all. You
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C89051.6E9DDF90-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 13:41:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381CC3A6FBB for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.741, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLacKzsNBz7W for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529433A6C76 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jeyde-000C3p-IY for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:54 +0000 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JeydW-000Bwy-Ap for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:48 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2RKNW3P026226 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:37 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2RKNUgb026219 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:32 GMT Message-ID: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:01:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0055028C813 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LZ-OARMbDioB for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EAB28C8E6 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAI0-00073x-JU for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:50:20 +0000 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAHu-00072Q-In for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:50:19 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAHr-0008FY-1j for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:50:11 +0100 Received: from h4n2fls31o874.telia.com ([213.66.236.4]:62488 helo=[192.168.0.100]) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAHp-0008FD-Ib; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <47ECB132.7090200@pi.se> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:54 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mpls@ietf.org, pwe3 , l3vpn@ietf.org, L2VPN , ccamp CC: George Swallow , Ross Callon , David Ward Subject: Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk All, In the discussions the IETF and the ITU-T have had on T-MPLS we have discussed the intended use for label 14 and the different documents where this has been specified. As a side effect we've also started to ask ourselves if there are any implementations and/or deployments that uses label 14. A quick survey among known implementers of MPLS has not shown any implementations/deployments. Since one of the approaches discussed in the Joint Working Team context is a solution that requires the allocation of a reserved label and reserved labels are a scarce resource we'd like to know if it possible to redefine label 14 for that particular use. There are still technical issues to be sorted out with the suggested approach, but in the mean time we would like to know if it is possible to deprecate RFC3429 and redefine the OAM Alert Label. The questions is: "Are there any implementations/deployments of Y.1711 or the OAM Alert label as it is allocated in RFC3429; and is there objection to deprecating the protocol as it stands today?" ITU-T has sent out a question along the same lines, see the included mail below. Please respond to the mpls working group mailing list or to the mpls working chairs directly. As usual non-responses will be counted as that there is no implementation/deployment. Loa and George ------------------- included mail ------------------------------------ All users/implementers of recommendation Y.1711, Currently the Joint Working Team of ITU-T and IETF experts is considering the options of using IETF mechanisms to provide OAM for T-MPLS. One possibility is the following mechanism: ------------------------------------------- Push/pop a label at the MEP/domain boundary. This makes the OAM alert label directly visible at the sink MEP. To make the OAM label visible to a MIP the TTL in the server (lower) layer is set by the MEP to expire when the OAM frame reaches the intended MIP. The OAM alert label will point to an �opcode� at the bottom of the stack. ------------------------------------------ This behaviour (when the OAM alert label is received) is not consistent with the behaviour currently defined in Y.1711 when label 14 is received. *QUESTION* are there any users/implementers of the current Y.1711 concerned with this change in behaviour? If there are no concerns then recommendation Y.1711 can be withdrawn or revised to describe the desired behaviour (described above). Please send me (or this list) your response ASAP. Kind regards, Huub van Helvoort, your rapporteur. -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:08:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177123A6D7B for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.866 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.734, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9A2YLyiocwid for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EC828C942 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfARy-000Afn-Te for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:00:38 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfARO-000AXW-Fk for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:00:16 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id CE6AB3A6D99; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Message-Id: <20080328090001.CE6AB3A6D99@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Author(s) : D. Caviglia, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2008-03-28 In a transport network scenario, where Data Plane connections controlled either by GMPLS (Soft Permanent Connections - SPC) or by Management System (Permanent Connections - PC) may independently coexist, the ability of transforming an existing PC into a SPC and vice versa - without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it - is a valuable option. This applies especially when a GMPLS based Control Plane is first introduced into an existing network and there may be the need, from a Carrier point of view, to pass under GMPLS control existing connections already set up over Data Plane. In other terms, such operation could be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. This memo provides a minor extension to RSVP-TE signaling protocol, within GMPLS architecture, to enable such connection ownership transfer and describes the proposed procedures. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-28015203.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:43:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AB13A6ADF for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:43:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxAknJ-TyG8W for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092593A6811 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAxu-000KL0-LX for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:33:38 +0000 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAxr-000KK4-Ed for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:33:36 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAxp-0008Ub-Nm for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:33:33 +0100 Received: from h4n2fls31o874.telia.com ([213.66.236.4]:62627 helo=[192.168.0.100]) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JfAxn-0008UP-WC; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:33:32 +0100 Message-ID: <47ECBB5D.5070306@pi.se> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:33:17 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk yes - to all! /Loa Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:53:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C759A3A6811 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G99xMJo4LX7E for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E869A3A6A3B for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfBAt-000NSl-M7 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:47:03 +0000 Received: from [212.25.127.231] (helo=gfi-gw.seabridge.co.il) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfBAq-000NRx-3T for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:47:01 +0000 Received: from dove.seabridge.co.il ([172.30.10.115]) by gfi-gw.seabridge.co.il with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:46:56 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:46:55 +0300 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQS+Dn4FeclqsxRk+VpIQmVeG+ZQAZyNrw From: "Nurit Sprecher" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 09:46:56.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[A95B8A30:01C890B8] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk I am in favor of all four documents to become IETF drafts.=20 Nurit -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 22:23 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Hi, From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working=20 group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about=20 the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on=20 for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 05:08:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF293A6AF3 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wui1s3IXF1Sa for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB313A67E6 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfDBS-0003Y0-OS for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:55:46 +0000 Received: from [47.140.192.56] (helo=zrtps0kp.nortel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfDBQ-0003Vw-2Z for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:55:45 +0000 Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m2SBbm511437; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:37:48 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE145117F7@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <47ECBB5D.5070306@pi.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQuBMPl9X0yh+zREeGt30G4Q9d9gAD/qOg References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <47ECBB5D.5070306@pi.se> From: "David Allan" To: "Loa Andersson" , "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Agreed.... Dave=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:33 AM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds yes - to all! /Loa Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP=20 >> working > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion=20 > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that=20 > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of=20 > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 07:58:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8BA28C950 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rwa8yBqDSkCF for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3E228C9A9 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfFsn-0001nH-LK for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:48:41 +0000 Received: from [63.118.34.22] (helo=hicks.ciena.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfFsd-0001eb-4E for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:48:32 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:48:13 -0400 Message-ID: <23F9E58A916663488B3D12D1FE1A999F0115CB38@mdmxm03.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds thread-index: AciQSRVcK0EYNZACS2yQceVzV3XhvwAmZHwg References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Ong, Lyndon" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 14:48:20.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[C42CAD10:01C890E2] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes on all four drafts. Lyndon=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:23 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Hi, From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:05:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C04C28C1E2 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:05:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ZS1Kxo8Yi7F for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E083A6A94 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfG2Y-0005Ce-Uf for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:58:47 +0000 Received: from [216.104.42.195] (helo=esc91.midphase.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfG2Q-00058B-Iy for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:58:40 +0000 Received: from [216.104.42.195] (helo=LC2.labn.net) by esc91.midphase.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JfG2M-0005SR-PR; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:58:34 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:58:37 -0400 To: "Adrian Farrel" From: Lou Berger Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Cc: In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc91.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ops.ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Message-Id: I support adoption of all (no surprise here). Lou At 04:23 PM 3/27/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as > CCAMP working group documents. > >Please express your opinions. > >Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion >about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on >that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task >of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect >the discussion may go on for a while. > >draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt >draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt >draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt >draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > >Thanks, >Adrian > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:38:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD63D3A6AE0 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:38:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwqhdpJmguYt for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0BD3A69E2 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfGRK-000D31-3m for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:24:22 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfGRD-000D1t-Sy for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:24:20 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 59C152266B; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:57:47 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ac995bb000004ec0-a5-47ed076b9a44 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3F74E22658; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:57:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:57:46 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:57:43 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF68401376E32@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds thread-index: AciQSksYi90YiUO+TDKHZRbx29AHfgAmcMzg From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 14:57:46.0758 (UTC) FILETIME=[157DFA60:01C890E4] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi yes to all. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: gioved=EC 27 marzo 2008 21.23 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made=20 > some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the=20 > authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics=20 > and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:40:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1644E3A6C63 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCeW0kUFuEe4 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BFD28C0E9 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfGWR-000EgG-Lw for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:29:39 +0000 Received: from [47.129.242.56] (helo=zcars04e.nortel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfGWJ-000EdV-8R for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:29:35 +0000 Received: from zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.51]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m2SFSsQ00960; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:28:55 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA41446EB53@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSzgUEvzHhLaRSmmeexaI37kphgAnTgGA References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes, support for all, Don =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working=20 > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about=20 > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on=20 > that topic in=20 > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on=20 > for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 09:57:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE7E28C813 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lbHSLWTAMNmw for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B22928C3CB for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfHoP-000Dq6-0o for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:52:17 +0000 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfHoC-000DoF-B8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:52:10 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2SGppEB097261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:51:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <47ED2229.8020307@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:51:53 -0700 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes to all. Greg B. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:53:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754A628C43C for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:53:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-oH3AAFPmJ4 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E6F28C4A5 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfJb2-000IQL-5X for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:46:36 +0000 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JfJZf-000HzW-0Y for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:45:36 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id CDA1120668; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:36:18 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab192bb000004ec0-5a-47ed3aa28858 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B828E2064C; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:36:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:36:18 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:43 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262480F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSkqo3/m834qYTA6Sent4V47bhAAuASQQ References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 18:36:18.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CB68AB0:01C89102] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes to all. Best regards, Attila=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made=20 > some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the=20 > authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics=20 > and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 18:30:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EF53A6DF1 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vctSTHHcXRb6 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6503A6A63 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jg8kr-000OLi-2p for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:24:09 +0000 Received: from [61.144.161.54] (helo=szxga02-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jg8ko-000OKw-5Q for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:24:07 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JYK00528MK4YB@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:24:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JYK00JNYMK4Q1@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:24:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from l37133 ([10.70.77.61]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JYK00AYAMK441@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:24:04 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:24:04 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <006701c892cd$e8a4e210$3d4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes to all. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:23 AM Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds > Hi, > > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on > for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:48:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2E928C207 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:48:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZF4hQ456fSg3 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF31F28C28C for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgEZo-0008cd-GN for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:37:08 +0000 Received: from [195.250.30.2] (helo=chef.nextworks.it) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgEZi-0008br-FB for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:37:06 +0000 Received: from [131.114.33.165] (scratchy.meta.cpr.it [131.114.33.165]) by chef.nextworks.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC277BD51 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:46:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <47F08685.9010804@cpr.it> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:36:53 +0200 From: Gino Carrozzo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070730) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Yes to all best regards Gino Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:44:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C46728C24A for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kbr4h+N+tBjv for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648DE28C224 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgNvz-000Hm2-6R for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:39 +0000 Received: from [155.53.12.9] (helo=prattle.redback.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgNvs-000Hhq-Aa for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA1675236E; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08841-02; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [???????IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7F975236D; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Alan Davey , Vishwas Manral , David Ward , Ross Callon , CCAMP List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Subject: OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:36:31 -0400 To: OSPF List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk We've WG last called this draft in the past and we're going to do it again now. After some deliberations we've made the decision to go forward with this document with the two existing implementations and forgo the request for interoperability testing. The WG last call will be begin today and end April 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT. Thanks, Acee From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:52:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6E928C303 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ayVavdahUu0P for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2EF28C1D1 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgPvE-0009yt-Af for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:44:00 +0000 Received: from [63.118.34.22] (helo=hicks.ciena.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgPuz-0009xX-N8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:43:54 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:43:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3C13767EA2F93441AFB13A630204F1B201D8854F@mamxm02.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSRghVH2dZFb6QgGijAbZ0S2Z5ADHmCLA From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "Adrian Farrel" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 19:43:38.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[83B98FF0:01C89367] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk support all.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working=20 > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about=20 > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on=20 > that topic in=20 > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on=20 > for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 18:07:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6000C28C2C8 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:07:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mp-UygCEZCTR for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6384628C2BB for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgUoV-000HML-Sb for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:57:23 +0000 Received: from [2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84] (helo=mandala.kddilabs.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JgUoT-000HM5-AD for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:57:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BBDEC90D; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:57:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BEDEC87B; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:57:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp195.wlan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.110.195]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF3F578111; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:57:16 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47F1886B.8050507@kddilabs.jp> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:57:15 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds References: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hello everyone, I support these documents for adoption as WG documents in ccamp WG. Regards, Tomo Adrian Farrel =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3=81=BE=E3=81= =97=E3=81=9F: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP=20 >> working=20 > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion=20 > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that=20 > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of=20 > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:45:36 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:43:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3C13767EA2F93441AFB13A630204F1B201D8854F@mamxm02.ciena.com> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSRghVH2dZFb6QgGijAbZ0S2Z5ADHmCLA From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "Adrian Farrel" , support all.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working=20 > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about=20 > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on=20 > that topic in=20 > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on=20 > for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:38:32 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Alan Davey , Vishwas Manral , David Ward , Ross Callon , CCAMP List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Subject: OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:36:31 -0400 To: OSPF List We've WG last called this draft in the past and we're going to do it again now. After some deliberations we've made the decision to go forward with this document with the two existing implementations and forgo the request for interoperability testing. The WG last call will be begin today and end April 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT. Thanks, Acee Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: <47F08685.9010804@cpr.it> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:36:53 +0200 From: Gino Carrozzo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070730) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes to all best regards Gino Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:26:31 +0000 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:24:04 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <006701c892cd$e8a4e210$3d4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yes to all. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:23 AM Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds > Hi, > > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on > for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:48:06 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:43 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262480F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSkqo3/m834qYTA6Sent4V47bhAAuASQQ From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Yes to all. Best regards, Attila=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made=20 > some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the=20 > authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics=20 > and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:53:20 +0000 Message-ID: <47ED2229.8020307@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:51:53 -0700 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes to all. Greg B. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:29:54 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA41446EB53@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQSzgUEvzHhLaRSmmeexaI37kphgAnTgGA From: "Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Yes, support for all, Don =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:23 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working=20 > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about=20 > the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on=20 > that topic in=20 > Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 > updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on=20 > for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:25:13 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:57:43 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF68401376E32@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds thread-index: AciQSksYi90YiUO+TDKHZRbx29AHfgAmcMzg From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Hi yes to all. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: gioved=EC 27 marzo 2008 21.23 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption=20 > as CCAMP working group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the=20 > discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made=20 > some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the=20 > authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics=20 > and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:33 +0000 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:58:37 -0400 To: "Adrian Farrel" From: Lou Berger Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: I support adoption of all (no surprise here). Lou At 04:23 PM 3/27/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > > From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as > CCAMP working group documents. > >Please express your opinions. > >Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion >about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on >that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task >of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect >the discussion may go on for a while. > >draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt >draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt >draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt >draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > >Thanks, >Adrian > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:50:26 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:48:13 -0400 Message-ID: <23F9E58A916663488B3D12D1FE1A999F0115CB38@mdmxm03.ciena.com> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds thread-index: AciQSRVcK0EYNZACS2yQceVzV3XhvwAmZHwg From: "Ong, Lyndon" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Yes on all four drafts. Lyndon=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:23 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Hi, >From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:57:25 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE145117F7@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQuBMPl9X0yh+zREeGt30G4Q9d9gAD/qOg From: "David Allan" To: "Loa Andersson" , "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Agreed.... Dave=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:33 AM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds yes - to all! /Loa Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP=20 >> working > group documents. >=20 > Please express your opinions. >=20 > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion=20 > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that=20 > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of=20 > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the=20 > discussion may go on for a while. >=20 > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:47:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:46:55 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Thread-Index: AciQS+Dn4FeclqsxRk+VpIQmVeG+ZQAZyNrw From: "Nurit Sprecher" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: I am in favor of all four documents to become IETF drafts.=20 Nurit -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 22:23 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Hi, >From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working=20 group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about=20 the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some=20 updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on=20 for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:34:15 +0000 Message-ID: <47ECBB5D.5070306@pi.se> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:33:17 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yes - to all! /Loa Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP >> working > group documents. > > Please express your opinions. > > Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion > about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that > topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of > making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the > discussion may go on for a while. > > draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt > draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:01:21 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Message-Id: <20080328090001.CE6AB3A6D99@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:00:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Author(s) : D. Caviglia, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2008-03-28 In a transport network scenario, where Data Plane connections controlled either by GMPLS (Soft Permanent Connections - SPC) or by Management System (Permanent Connections - PC) may independently coexist, the ability of transforming an existing PC into a SPC and vice versa - without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it - is a valuable option. This applies especially when a GMPLS based Control Plane is first introduced into an existing network and there may be the need, from a Carrier point of view, to pass under GMPLS control existing connections already set up over Data Plane. In other terms, such operation could be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. This memo provides a minor extension to RSVP-TE signaling protocol, within GMPLS architecture, to enable such connection ownership transfer and describes the proposed procedures. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-28015203.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:04 +0000 Message-ID: <47ECB132.7090200@pi.se> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:54 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mpls@ietf.org, pwe3 , l3vpn@ietf.org, L2VPN , ccamp CC: George Swallow , Ross Callon , David Ward Subject: Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All, In the discussions the IETF and the ITU-T have had on T-MPLS we have discussed the intended use for label 14 and the different documents where this has been specified. As a side effect we've also started to ask ourselves if there are any implementations and/or deployments that uses label 14. A quick survey among known implementers of MPLS has not shown any implementations/deployments. Since one of the approaches discussed in the Joint Working Team context is a solution that requires the allocation of a reserved label and reserved labels are a scarce resource we'd like to know if it possible to redefine label 14 for that particular use. There are still technical issues to be sorted out with the suggested approach, but in the mean time we would like to know if it is possible to deprecate RFC3429 and redefine the OAM Alert Label. The questions is: "Are there any implementations/deployments of Y.1711 or the OAM Alert label as it is allocated in RFC3429; and is there objection to deprecating the protocol as it stands today?" ITU-T has sent out a question along the same lines, see the included mail below. Please respond to the mpls working group mailing list or to the mpls working chairs directly. As usual non-responses will be counted as that there is no implementation/deployment. Loa and George ------------------- included mail ------------------------------------ All users/implementers of recommendation Y.1711, Currently the Joint Working Team of ITU-T and IETF experts is considering the options of using IETF mechanisms to provide OAM for T-MPLS. One possibility is the following mechanism: ------------------------------------------- Push/pop a label at the MEP/domain boundary. This makes the OAM alert label directly visible at the sink MEP. To make the OAM label visible to a MIP the TTL in the server (lower) layer is set by the MEP to expire when the OAM frame reaches the intended MIP. The OAM alert label will point to an �opcode� at the bottom of the stack. ------------------------------------------ This behaviour (when the OAM alert label is received) is not consistent with the behaviour currently defined in Y.1711 when label 14 is received. *QUESTION* are there any users/implementers of the current Y.1711 concerned with this change in behaviour? If there are no concerns then recommendation Y.1711 can be withdrawn or revised to describe the desired behaviour (described above). Please send me (or this list) your response ASAP. Kind regards, Huub van Helvoort, your rapporteur. -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:25:49 +0000 Message-ID: <03cc01c89048$6717b0b0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:23:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, >From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working group documents. Please express your opinions. Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while. draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:59:54 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Message-Id: <20080327170001.2A6D13A6A42@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support Author(s) : R. Bradford, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2008-03-27 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs). Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate, with each responsible for computing a segment of the path. To preserve confidentiality of topology with each AS, the PCE supports a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path Key Subobject (PKS). This document describes the addition of this information to Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) signaling by inclusion in the Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-27095524.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:16:23 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Message-Id: <20080327151502.BE35D3A6FEB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link Management Protocol Author(s) : D. Li, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2008-03-27 This document defines simple additions to the Link Management Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm Li Expires September 2008 [page 1] draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt March 2008 data channel statuses, and provides triggers for notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-27080429.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:45:17 +0000 Message-ID: <47EAED8C.5010704@kddilabs.jp> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:42:52 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Masanori Miyazawa , Tom Nadeau , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-03.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adrian, Thank you for your comments. We will work for it and update the draft=20 shortly. Regards, tomo Adrian Farrel =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3=81=BE=E3=81= =97=E3=81=9F: > Hi, > In Philadelphia we discussed the next steps for this document and=20 > agreed that it is probably ready for a MIB Doctor review. I thought=20 > that I should have another look at it before we send it off. > > Major issues > 1. Need to pick up boilerpate sections as per RFC 4181 > In particular, the security sections are needed. > 2. I *think* that index values should be "not-accessible" > rather than "read-only". > 3. Need to check the MIB with smilint using > smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 > See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/ > I get the following errors: > mibs/ted.my:43: [3] {revision-missing} revision for last update is=20 > missing > mibs/ted.my:43: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier=20 > element `xxx' name only allowed as first element > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element=20 > `teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB > mibs/ted.my:851: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group=20 > `tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in this module > 4. Should we have two conformance statements? One for > MPLS-TE and one for GMPLS? > 5. I believe you should use InetAddress and InetAddressType > from RFC 4001 instead of IpAddress. We need to support > IPv6 > 6. Looks like the whole MIB module is read-only. Does that > mean that "manually configured" table entries cannot be > configured through the MIB? If that is your intention (i.e. > that configuration is made only through other mechanisms) > I think you should discuss this in the text. > 7. I think that teSwitchingType and teEncoding need to be > extensible. And it would be useful to be consistent > between routing and signaling. Please consider using > IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC and > IANAGmplsLSPEncodingTypeTC from > IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. See > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib > > > > Less major points > - Title needs to be updated to include MPLS-TE > - I wonder if it is worth also including the IGP metric > in this table. I know it is a duplication of information, > but it is useful for TE processing > - It would be nice to include a simple example > - teIndication could use a reference to help people > understand the usage. > Actually, it wouldn't hurt to include more references > for all objects. > - You should also reference and think about OSPFv3 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt > > There are some nits... > - Tom is now with BT > - In teLinkStateId s/jndicates/indicates/ > - [RFC2119] only needs to appear in section 9 once > - You shouldn't list RFC1850. It is obsolete. > > > You should also clean up the nits shown by idnits=20 > (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) > I see the following errors: > Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748= : > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 updated = by > RFC 4748 (on line 1204), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 3978 > Section 5.4 paragraph 1 text on line 231. > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the=20 > document. > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the=20 > longest one > being 1 character in excess of 72. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > No issues found here. > > Checking references for intended status: > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 > > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'RFC3410' is mentioned on line 75, but not de= fined > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'OSPF-MIB' is mentioned on line 389, but not=20 > defined > > =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'ISIS-MIB' is mentioned on line 393, but not=20 > defined > > =3D=3D Unused Reference: 'MPLS OAM' is defined on line 1130, but no exp= licit > reference was found in the text > > =3D=3D Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 1134, but no expl= icit > reference was found in the text > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1850 > (Obsoleted by RFC 4750) > > =3D=3D Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements has been=20 > published > as RFC 4377 > > > > If you can work on these issues, we'll take the I-D to the MIB Doctor. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:46:09 +0000 Message-ID: <01e801c88f68$d67d3640$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Mach Chen" , Subject: Update: WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:42:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="GB2312"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Just to give you an update on the dependency on OSPFv3-TE. The ADs and OSPF working group chairs have agreed to re-submit the OSPFv3-TE draft and to last call it in the OSPF working group. We can expect this to happen fairly soon (the I-D is already re-submitted) so it is OK for this CCAMP draft to keep its normative reference to the OSPFv3-TE draft. The worst that will happen is that our draft will be held up in the RFC Editor's queue for a few extra weeks. Adrian >>OSPFv3-TE >> I am currently trying to close an issue down >> with the OSPF WG chairs and the ADs. >> Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as >> requested by the OSPF working group. >> This means that you are correct to have the >> OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative reference. >> However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in >> the OSPF working group where: >> - the draft has just expired >> - there is more than one implementation >> - there are no known deployments >> - no interop testing has been done >> This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not >> advance for some time and might leave your >> draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. >> I will update the working group as we make >> progress on this issue. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:58 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Message-Id: <20080326074501.90C6E28C4FA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks Author(s) : W. Sun, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2008-03-26 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most promising candidate technologies for the future data transmission network. The GMPLS has been developed to control and cooperate different kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add- Drop Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro area. As different applications have varied requirements in the provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other. This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks, specifically the dynamical LSP setup/release performance. These metrics can depict the features of the GMPLS network in LSP dynamic provisioning. They can also be used in operational networks for carriers to monitor the control plane performance in realtime. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-26004245.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:44:43 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Message-Id: <20080326074501.90C6E28C4FA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks Author(s) : W. Sun, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2008-03-26 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most promising candidate technologies for the future data transmission network. The GMPLS has been developed to control and cooperate different kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add- Drop Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro area. As different applications have varied requirements in the provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other. This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks, specifically the dynamical LSP setup/release performance. These metrics can depict the features of the GMPLS network in LSP dynamic provisioning. They can also be used in operational networks for carriers to monitor the control plane performance in realtime. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-26004245.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:21 +0000 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:41:51 +0800 From: Mach Chen Subject: Re: WG last call comments ondraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt To: Adrian Farrel Cc: "ccamp@ops.ietf.org" Message-id: <200803260941492626553@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Adrian, Thanks for your useful comments, the next revision will be updated according to your comments ASAP. Best regards, Mach On 2008-03-26, at 02:28:09 Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >Here are a few very minor review comments. >It is probable that similar comments apply to the ISIS draft. Can you check? > >Thanks, >Adrian >=== >Header >s/Network work group/Network working group/ >Please show names as "M. Chen" >=== >Abstract >s/Engineering(TE)/Engineering (TE)/ >s/information from other outside the AS/information from outside the AS/ >=== >OSPFv3-TE >I am currently trying to close an issue down with the OSPF WG chairs and the >ADs. >Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as requested by the OSPF working >group. >This means that you are correct to have the OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative >reference. >However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in the OSPF working group where: >- the draft has just expired >- there is more than one implementation >- there are no known deployments >- no interop testing has been done >This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not advance for some time and >might leave your draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. >I will update the working group as we make progress on this issue. >=== >Section 2.1 >s/excluded.:/excluded:/ >=== >Section 2.2 >s/PATH/Path/ x2 >s/Section 4.0/Section 4./ >=== >Section 2.3 >s/TE link is particular/TE link is particularly/ >=== >Section 3.1.1 >s/network-wide policy choice/AS-wide policy choice/ >=== >Section 3.2 >s/Both/Both the/ >=== >Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 >Please include a forward reference to Section 6.2 when you discuss the TLV >type assignment and mention IANA. >=== >Section 4 >s/link , the ASBR/link, the ASBR/ >s/consequently , an/consequently, an/ >s/considering here(i.e.,/considering here (i.e.,/ >=== >Section 6.1 >Please separate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 assignments into separate paragraphs >(or sections). >Please reference the IANA registries by name "Opaque Link-State >Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" for OSPFv2, and "Open Shortest Path First >v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" with sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" for >OSPFv3. >=== >Section 8.2 >[PD-PATH] is now RFC 5152 >=== > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:27:10 +0000 Message-ID: <00d301c88ea5$776e6250$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Mach Chen" Subject: WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Here are a few very minor review comments. It is probable that similar comments apply to the ISIS draft. Can you check? Thanks, Adrian === Header s/Network work group/Network working group/ Please show names as "M. Chen" === Abstract s/Engineering(TE)/Engineering (TE)/ s/information from other outside the AS/information from outside the AS/ === OSPFv3-TE I am currently trying to close an issue down with the OSPF WG chairs and the ADs. Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as requested by the OSPF working group. This means that you are correct to have the OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative reference. However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in the OSPF working group where: - the draft has just expired - there is more than one implementation - there are no known deployments - no interop testing has been done This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not advance for some time and might leave your draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue. I will update the working group as we make progress on this issue. === Section 2.1 s/excluded.:/excluded:/ === Section 2.2 s/PATH/Path/ x2 s/Section 4.0/Section 4./ === Section 2.3 s/TE link is particular/TE link is particularly/ === Section 3.1.1 s/network-wide policy choice/AS-wide policy choice/ === Section 3.2 s/Both/Both the/ === Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 Please include a forward reference to Section 6.2 when you discuss the TLV type assignment and mention IANA. === Section 4 s/link , the ASBR/link, the ASBR/ s/consequently , an/consequently, an/ s/considering here(i.e.,/considering here (i.e.,/ === Section 6.1 Please separate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 assignments into separate paragraphs (or sections). Please reference the IANA registries by name "Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" for OSPFv2, and "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" with sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" for OSPFv3. === Section 8.2 [PD-PATH] is now RFC 5152 === Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:58:32 +0000 Message-ID: <0eec01c88e6f$0b88d510$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Approved Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:52:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looks like we have enough support and no objections for the following I-Ds. Authors: please submit the drafts. Please don't forget to use idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) to check that your I-Ds are formatted OK. > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt (Note the "g" is deleted) > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-00.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Becomes draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:29:10 +0000 Message-ID: <0ed601c88e6b$0db72390$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Jonathan Sadler" , "Lyndon Ong" , "Stephen Shew" , , "Ross Callon" , "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Subject: RFC 4258 bis Design Team Formed Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi CCAMP, We have three volunteers to do the heavy lifting for the proposed revision of RFC 4258. They are: Jonathan Sadler Stephen Shew Lyndon Ong Thanks to them for taking this on. Below is a rough charter for their work. A dedicated IETF mailing list will be set up soon for the discussion of this work, and we will circulate the subscription details. 1. An IETF design team is just a group of people working together with a common goal. People may join or leave the team. You are encouraged to limit the team to the people who actively contribute text to the Internet- Draft you are producing. Review and discussion of your work should be held in a wider forum. Other teams may be set up with the same or similar objectives. 2. Your objective is to produce a revision of RFC 4258 in an Internet-Draft called draft-xxxx-ccamp-rfc4258bis-00.txt. You may entirely rewrite RFC 4258 or re-use text as appropriate. Your output, if eventually published as an RFC, will obsolete RFC 4258. 3. The purpose of the revision is to fully capture all of the ASON routing requirements expressed in current ITU-T Recommendations and express them in IETF routing terminology such that they can be understood and implemented within the IETF. Each requirement must be shown with full traceability back to its statement in an ITU-T Recommendation. 4. You should take care to fully credit the original authors of RFC 4258. 5. At this stage, your charter does not extend beyond the ASON routing requirements (i.e. the revision of RFC 4258). If this work is successful and demonstrates a need, future work may be chartered to revise RFC 4652 to examine how existing IETF routing protocols can be used to meet the requirements expressed in your new work. 6. You should use Adrian Farrel as your IETF process adviser. 7. A dedicated IETF mailing list will be established for public discussion of your work. You do not need to hold all discussions of your draft on this list, but you are encouraged to have as many debates (even between yourselves) in this forum. 8. You should work to the following timeline. March 2008 Design Team formed May 2008 Publish the -00 revision of your I-D Initiate discussions on your mailing list June 2008 Publish the -01 revision of your I-D Continue discussions on your mailing list July 2008 Present the -01 revision (or later) of your I-D at the CCAMP session of the Dublin IETF meeting August 2008 Adopt draft as a CCAMP working group draft Discuss on CCAMP mailing list Move rapidly to CCAMP working group last call We wish them well. Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:12:27 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:01:54 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF6840134D944@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4AALBmsHA= From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "ext Don Fedyk" , "Adrian Farrel" , Hi Don, I'll remove the g in the next version of the ID. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Don Fedyk > Sent: venerd=EC 21 marzo 2008 21.10 > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi Adrian >=20 > >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > OK Informational > > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a > definition. =20 > > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > yes > > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > yes >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:30:37 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Message-Id: <20080324223001.673473A6DBB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Analysis of Inter-domain Label Switched Path (LSP) Recovery Author(s) : T. Takeda Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2008-3-24 This document analyzes various schemes to realize Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) recovery in multi-domain networks based on the existing framework for multi-domain LSPs. The main focus for this document is on establishing end-to-end diverse Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs in multi-domain networks. It presents various diverse LSP setup schemes based on existing functional elements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-3-24152143.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:27:26 +0000 Message-ID: <0c8e01c88ce0$e17df370$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Draft minutes posted Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:23:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Draft minutes are posted at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/ccamp.htm Many thanks to note takers: - Greg Bernstein - Lyndon Ong - Martin Vigoureux Please send in any comments or updates. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:12:55 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA4142A61B6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4A From: "ext Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Hi Adrian > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt OK Informational > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a definition. =20 > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt yes Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:34:39 +0000 To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5146 on Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20080321233325.AD37A120688@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:25 -0700 (PDT) A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5146 Title: Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks Author: K. Kumaki, Ed. Status: Informational Date: March 2008 Mailbox: ke-kumaki@kddi.com Pages: 15 Characters: 31624 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5146.txt Operation of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineering (TE) network as a client network to a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network has enhanced operational capabilities compared to those provided by a coexistent protocol model (i.e., operation of MPLS-TE over an independently managed transport layer). The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet technologies. An MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP. This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:34:32 +0000 To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5145 on Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20080321233300.155F8120686@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT) A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5145 Title: Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration Author: K. Shiomoto, Ed. Status: Informational Date: March 2008 Mailbox: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Pages: 19 Characters: 44646 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5145.txt The migration from Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is the process of evolving an MPLS-TE control plane to a GMPLS control plane. An appropriate migration strategy will be selected based on various factors including the service provider's network deployment plan, customer demand, and operational policy. This document presents several migration models and strategies for migrating from MPLS-TE to GMPLS. In the course of migration, MPLS-TE and GMPLS devices, or networks, may coexist that may require interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols. Aspects of the required interworking are discussed as it will influence the choice of a migration strategy. This framework document provides a migration toolkit to aid the operator in selection of an appropriate strategy. This framework document also lists a set of solutions that may aid in interworking, and highlights a set of potential issues. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:12:54 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA4142A61B6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+J8LhLIA2XAcQPe76lWZc4WD3QClDL4A From: "Don Fedyk" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Hi Adrian > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt OK Informational > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt OK but where did GRSVP-TE acronym come from? Don who can't find a definition. =20 > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt yes Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:07:33 +0000 Message-ID: <08ec01c88a93$7c7f1cf0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Tomohiro Otani" , "Masanori Miyazawa" , "Tom Nadeau" Cc: Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-03.txt Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:05:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In Philadelphia we discussed the next steps for this document and agreed that it is probably ready for a MIB Doctor review. I thought that I should have another look at it before we send it off. Major issues 1. Need to pick up boilerpate sections as per RFC 4181 In particular, the security sections are needed. 2. I *think* that index values should be "not-accessible" rather than "read-only". 3. Need to check the MIB with smilint using smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/ I get the following errors: mibs/ted.my:43: [3] {revision-missing} revision for last update is missing mibs/ted.my:43: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `xxx' name only allowed as first element mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB mibs/ted.my:851: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group `tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in this module 4. Should we have two conformance statements? One for MPLS-TE and one for GMPLS? 5. I believe you should use InetAddress and InetAddressType from RFC 4001 instead of IpAddress. We need to support IPv6 6. Looks like the whole MIB module is read-only. Does that mean that "manually configured" table entries cannot be configured through the MIB? If that is your intention (i.e. that configuration is made only through other mechanisms) I think you should discuss this in the text. 7. I think that teSwitchingType and teEncoding need to be extensible. And it would be useful to be consistent between routing and signaling. Please consider using IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC and IANAGmplsLSPEncodingTypeTC from IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib Less major points - Title needs to be updated to include MPLS-TE - I wonder if it is worth also including the IGP metric in this table. I know it is a duplication of information, but it is useful for TE processing - It would be nice to include a simple example - teIndication could use a reference to help people understand the usage. Actually, it wouldn't hurt to include more references for all objects. - You should also reference and think about OSPFv3 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt There are some nits... - Tom is now with BT - In teLinkStateId s/jndicates/indicates/ - [RFC2119] only needs to appear in section 9 once - You shouldn't list RFC1850. It is obsolete. You should also clean up the nits shown by idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) I see the following errors: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 updated by RFC 4748 (on line 1204), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 text on line 231. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC3410' is mentioned on line 75, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'OSPF-MIB' is mentioned on line 389, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ISIS-MIB' is mentioned on line 393, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'MPLS OAM' is defined on line 1130, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 1134, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1850 (Obsoleted by RFC 4750) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements has been published as RFC 4377 If you can work on these issues, we'll take the I-D to the MIB Doctor. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:24:37 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , "'Attila Takacs'" , Subject: RE: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:48 +0800 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000d01c88a52$d1b5e7d0$7521b770$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AciJ31eSBenm1irJQ3CtD5d4hhRqKwAWljrw Content-Language: zh-cn Hi Attila and Adrian, Thanks for the comments. Our knowledge of the performance metrics and related methodologies has largely come from existing and ongoing documents, as well as some discussions in a discussion group. For your reference, I listed below a few examples that put the PM docs in the standard category: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2679.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-03.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt Also, there are a few other similar ones developed as informational docs: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-06.txt Personally, I think it is more appropriate to put the doc in the standard track, since it proposes not only the metrics and motivations, but the methodologies as well. The methodologies can be implementation references for certain users of the metrics, such as online measurement entities and testing devices. So far this doc has been developing in a discussion group and also in an offline manner. We expect to receive more feedbacks from the WG as we are settling down with the motivations, and can thus be more focused on metrics and methodologies. Also, we will try to solicit comments from other related WGs such as PMOL, BMWG and IPPM. It is indeed a wonderful idea to develop this document under the guidance of CCAMP experts and also with the support from performance metrics experts. Cheers, Weiqiang -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:24 AM To: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Attila wrote >> draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it > be just informational? Yse, I agree. Actually, there are one or two IETF-culture things to tweak in this I-D, and I prpose to give the authors a little help if we agree to take it into CCAMP. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: <078801c889eb$159a4210$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Working group last calls: Inter-AS TE link advertisement Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:00:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, This email begins a three week working group last call on: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-00.txt This last call will be advertised to the MPLS working group and to the OSPF and ISIS working groups as appropriate. The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008. Please send your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:31:21 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:29:28 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605689418@ftrdmel2> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9/9FdAK4C8JARcWe4Wy59GG61wA7hBlQ From: To: , Hi all. draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt -> Yes, this work is interesting. draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt -> Yes, this is an appropriate answer to the requirements. draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt -> Yes, this is a key feature. draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt -> Yes, I confirm this is useful (but I'm co-author). Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of = potential=20 new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't=20 worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We = will=20 get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are = encouraged=20 to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah =3D=3D=3D draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: <073c01c889dd$aa511f40$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Attila Takacs" , Subject: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds] Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:24:05 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Attila wrote >> draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it > be just informational? Yse, I agree. Actually, there are one or two IETF-culture things to tweak in this I-D, and I prpose to give the authors a little help if we agree to take it into CCAMP. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:23:44 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9vl3091Hvip4TcqR06KgfiiDIgA1WT4A From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Adrian Farrel" , In favour of: draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt (co-author) draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt (co-author) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:43 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of = potential=20 new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't=20 worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We = will=20 get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are = encouraged=20 to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah =3D=3D=3D draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:55:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:54:33 -0400 Message-ID: <0590495B8B6352449CE2CE5E8AAE67F1A3D9FB@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9o985CEXojQETo6MztmTfrpWFgAybl6g From: "Rich Bradford (rbradfor)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=66; t=1205931275; x=1206795275; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rbradfor@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rich=20Bradford=20(rbradfor)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20; bh=ZjXfq7TWeGsf4jFn4FHztP/yj8057XcZVEBfLp431oA=; b=E5bA267ysKuXjrh8hPVex9NPqXCw9hgwwF2oF/m7FtuBJdIAfcOJFz1mAg VncEtNHPTlG6MYtG+Zpd+PIIs+CrLuEUNT27N29ChsA9iKM/Ik33QfpB8nOc ziJq9/xjdq5Kl7XJvLci6O7WdAsyzxs6BPZQml2dHy5fhmMCobP4M=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=rbradfor@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In Favor, co-author. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:30:17 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E91026247E0@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+b3zw4Uj8M4JTOGHGlY3jKcg+wAwk2Lg From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Hi all, > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it be just informational? > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes. > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes. Best regards, Attila Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:42 +0000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: <9E577E61D0108D4F8CD482029B613F5C02A12CFE@PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+PTpUCOMMgwSTwuMbrCWqOFLyAApYzDQ From: "Capello Alessandro" To: Hi all, > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes Regards, Alessandro -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons = above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the = message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is = prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the = message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to = webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:44:08 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:21 +0100 Message-ID: <56D2F550769FAA4CA70D5B2EB8419F1402F1B0B4@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI+b1IMLdlVtvmTPOyZmq7LDNEPQAo29sw From: "Howard Green" To: "Adrian Farrel" , In favour for all 4=20 Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 18 March 2008 13:43 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list=20 > of potential new working group I-Ds. >=20 > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own=20 > sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first=20 > (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. >=20 > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You=20 > are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:29:44 +0000 Message-ID: <47E0CE9A.8090503@cpr.it> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:28:10 +0100 From: Gino Carrozzo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070730) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:03:56 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:02:44 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Thread-Index: AciJCNan2r/h3YvLThO+vyJjGH1AaQAAENSA From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto" , "Adrian Farrel" Cc: "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" , "Ccamp (E-mail)" Hi Adrian and Kohei, Thanks for your response.=20 So I believe we have a couple of alternatives to establish the client = layer interface: 1. Extend the VCAT layer call mechanism 2. Signal a VCAT layer LSP to trigger the creation of an = LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE So either way we have a single client layer interface which represents a = set of inversely multiplexed server layer LSPs. I am not sure if this aspect is described in the VCAT ID, does it make = sense to add this type of information? Regards, Snigdho -----Original Message----- From: Kohei Shiomoto [mailto:shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:59 AM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Bardalai, Snigdho; Greg Bernstein (E-mail); Ccamp (E-mail) Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Hi, Snigdho Thank you for your question. I agree with Adrian. Hierarchy bis describes, when a LSP is dynamically created, the ingress=20 LSP may indicates the LSP is advertised or used to carry traffic. We=20 consider the bundling link composed of component links in this draft.But = VCAT connection is not a bundled link. Call concept are used to a VCAT connection, which is composed of=20 multiple co-signaled member sets.How to advertise a link composed of the = VCG can be developed in the context of call concept to avoid=20 intermediate layer. But we do not have to exclude use of the same=20 mechanism defined in hierarchy-bis for this purpose. Best regards, Kohei > Hi, > > IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. > > Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may=20 > indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a=20 > link in some specific network layer. > > LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped=20 > together and the whole group is used as a link in another network = layer. > > So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange=20 > information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client=20 > layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the = > architecture) one might have three layers to consider... > > - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs > - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between > VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT > layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should > be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. > - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of > the VCAT layer LSP. > > Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be=20 > considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture=20 > defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them=20 > explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide=20 > the coordination with the client layer direct. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho"=20 > > To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg=20 > Bernstein (E-mail)" > Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)"=20 > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM > Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP > > > Hello Kohei and Greg, > > I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet)=20 > over VCAT server layer resources. > >> From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not=20 >> clear how=20 > will this exactly work. > > For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1=20 > LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would=20 > appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth=20 > capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which=20 > LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I=20 > think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent=20 > to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. > > Is there a defined way of handling this situation? > > Thanks, > Snigdho > > > > --=20 Kohei Shiomoto, Ph.D Senior Research Engineer, Supervisor, Group Leader NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories http://www.ntt.co.jp/islab/org/ns.html 3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone +81 422 59 4402 Fax +81 422 59 3787 Free online contents of "NTT Technical Review" available at https://www.ntt-review.jp/ Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:17:53 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:32 +0800 From: Mach Chen Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , "ccamp@ops.ietf.org" Message-id: <200803191116321569327@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, In favor of all four I-Ds. On 2008-03-18, at 20:50:23 Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential >new working group I-Ds. > >We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't >worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will >get to it by the end of the month. > >Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged >to give reasons especially for negative responses). > >Thanks, >Adrian and Deborah > >=== > >draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt >draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt >draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt >draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > Best regards, Mach Chen Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:00:34 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:59:26 +0800 From: "gyzhang" To: "Adrian Farrel" , "ccamp@ops.ietf.org" Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Message-Id: <20080319015939.9492B17721@smtp.sina.com.cn> SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpkcmFmdC14aWUtY2NhbXAtbHNwLWRwcG0tMDIudHh0DQpZZXMsIGluIGZhdm9y IGFzIGNvLWF1dGhvci4gUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgbWV0cmljcyBuZWVkIGJlIGRlZmluZWQuDQoNCmRy YWZ0LWNhdmlnbGlhLWNjYW1wLXBjLXNwYy1ncnN2cHRlLWV4dC0wMi50eHQNClllcywgcGMgdG8g c3BjIGNvbnZlcnRpb24gaXMgbmVlZGVkIGZvciBtYW55IENoaW5lc2UgY2FycmllcnMuDQoNCmRy YWZ0LWJyYWRmb3JkLWNjYW1wLXBhdGgta2V5LWVyby0wMS50eHQNClllcy4NCg0KZHJhZnQtbGkt Y2NhbXAtY29uZmlybS1kYXRhLWNoYW5uZWwtc3RhdHVzLTAzLnR4dA0KWWVzLgkNCg0KR3VveWlu ZyBaaGFuZw0KPT09PT09PSAyMDA4LTAzLTE4IDIwOjQzOjEwIMT61NrAtNDF1tDQtLXAo7o9PT09 PT09DQoNCj5IaSwNCj4NCj5XZSB0b29rIGFuIGFjdGlvbiBpbiBQaGlsYWRlbHBoaWEgdG8gcG9s bCB5b3Ugb24gYSBsb25nIGxpc3Qgb2YgcG90ZW50aWFsIA0KPm5ldyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIEkt RHMuDQo+DQo+V2UgYXJlIHNwbGl0dGluZyB0aGlzIGxpc3QgaW50byB0aHJlZSBsYXJnZWx5IGZv ciBvdXIgb3duIHNhbml0eS4gRG9uJ3QgDQo+d29ycnkgaWYgeW91ciBmYXZvcml0ZSBJLUQgaXMg bm90IGluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCAob3Igc2Vjb25kKSBiYXRjaC4gV2Ugd2lsbCANCj5nZXQgdG8gaXQg YnkgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0aGUgbW9udGguDQo+DQo+Q2FuIHlvdSBwbGVhc2UgYW5zd2VyIHllcyBv ciBubyBmb3IgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBJLURzLiBZb3UgYXJlIGVuY291cmFnZWQgDQo+dG8gZ2l2 ZSByZWFzb25zIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgZm9yIG5lZ2F0aXZlIHJlc3BvbnNlcykuDQo+DQo+VGhhbmtz LA0KPkFkcmlhbiBhbmQgRGVib3JhaA0KPg0KPj09PQ0KPg0KPmRyYWZ0LXhpZS1jY2FtcC1sc3At ZHBwbS0wMi50eHQNCj5kcmFmdC1jYXZpZ2xpYS1jY2FtcC1wYy1zcGMtZ3JzdnB0ZS1leHQtMDIu dHh0DQo+ZHJhZnQtYnJhZGZvcmQtY2NhbXAtcGF0aC1rZXktZXJvLTAxLnR4dA0KPmRyYWZ0LWxp LWNjYW1wLWNvbmZpcm0tZGF0YS1jaGFubmVsLXN0YXR1cy0wMy50eHQNCj4NCj4NCj4NCj4NCg0K PSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9DQoJCQkNCg0KoaGhoaGhoaGh oaGhoaGhodbCDQrA8aOhDQogDQoJCQkJIA0KoaGhoaGhoaGhoaGhoaGhoWd5emhhbmcNCqGhoaGh oaGhoaGhoaGhoaFneXpoYW5nQHNpbmEuY29tDQqhoaGhoaGhoaGhoaGhoaGhoaGhoTIwMDgtMDMt MTkNCg0K Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:53:05 +0000 Message-ID: <47E071C7.9090709@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:52:07 +0900 From: Kenji Kumaki User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt I support it. Thanks, Kenji Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of > potential new working group I-Ds. > > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't > worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We > will get to it by the end of the month. > > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are > encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > > === > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:39:40 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:36:20 +0800 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000001c88961$a3c30840$eb4918c0$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AciI+OoMoL0jDaTIQUK/fE1xtYFTBgAaG/tA Content-Language: zh-cn Hi all, >draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes in favor as co-author. >draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes in favor. >draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes in favor. draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes in favor. Thanks, Weiqiang -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:43 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:53:21 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:50:17 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds To: Adrian Farrel , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <015901c8895b$3353fa70$3d4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes! > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes! > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes! > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:43 PM Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds > Hi, > > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential > new working group I-Ds. > > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't > worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will > get to it by the end of the month. > > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged > to give reasons especially for negative responses). > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > > === > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:21:31 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:20:33 -0600 From: Young Lee Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds To: 'Adrian Farrel' , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <000f01c88924$c2062630$330c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AciI9qTnueK1/nOeR/2D6Wd9mRLpawALgaug Yes for all four. draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Young -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:43 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: <05ed01c88920$9335e240$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: "Scott Bradner" , "Lam, Hing-Kam $Kam$" , "Stephen Trowbridge" , "Yoichi Maeda" , , "Ross Callon" , "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Subject: ASON Routing Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:50:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, You may have noticed the liaison we received from the ITU-T at the end of February on ASON routing. This was a detailed review of RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 against the latest requirements documented in ITU-T Recommendations and arose in response to our request for exactly such a review after we heard that Study Group 15 was not happy with our analysis. You can see the liaison at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/424/ and the output of the review at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file531.pdf We held an ad hoc meeting in Philadelphia with many of the concerned parties (thanks to the ITU folk who travelled specially, and to the IETF GMPLS and routing experts who gave up their evening) to discuss the issues raised, to try to understand and scope the differences, and to agree the way forward. We decided that the best approach will be to revise RFC 4258 as a bis, and to then consider whether any further work is needed to RFC 4652. At the same time, we will freeze work on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt until we know whether it also needs to be modified - we expect that by the time of our next meeting (July 2008) we will know whether modifications are required. The new work will lead to draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4258-bis-00.txt. But may get there through multiple revisions of an individual submission. The draft may reuse substantial text from RFC 4258, but it was agreed that every requirement in the document will show full traceability back to the ITU-T recommendations. At the moment, I am looking to put together a "compact" team of editors for this work. People in the team must be prepared to make significant textual contributions. Please contact me if you wish to be in this team (please also assume that I have not heard from you unless you receive a response from me). Once the team is in place, we will also set up an IETF mailing list for open community discussions of the work. When the work is complete it will we discussed and last called on the CCAMP mailing list, and will be liaised to the ITU-T as appropriate. We will also liaise this information to the ITU-T to solicit contributors from there. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:37:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:30 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciI9o+SiFnOvK1mSA6PknTy0TfBKQAEkJig From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=103; t=1205854639; x=1206718639; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Adrian=20Farrel=22=20,=20; bh=wJxJUkX2JOTlJREFSjO2IhrwM8xwm9/7d9P5jmVZVs0=; b=NUK7KfmQtQUxndwSZd1GceeewDAD7g8xtqMMTVZQDRtiD65jNNhQtABDS2 IsOFWT0O8dhpmsoTK5T87xIsifnAb1XyWA1PV469u6He+PgmDIRtDq/ClGSt UQ8I8ddcKe; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In favor=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar =20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:35:21 +0000 Message-ID: <47DFE0EF.4070900@grotto-networking.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:34:07 -0700 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt Yes. Good to have metrics. > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes. Good to be able to convert between SPCs and PCs > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt Yes. Need this to work with same mechanism as PCE. > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes. Good to locate and identify stranded resources. > > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:01:31 +0000 Message-ID: <47DFD8A9.9010509@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:58:49 +0900 From: Kohei Shiomoto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" , "Ccamp (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Snigdho Thank you for your question. I agree with Adrian. Hierarchy bis describes, when a LSP is dynamically created, the ingress LSP may indicates the LSP is advertised or used to carry traffic. We consider the bundling link composed of component links in this draft.But VCAT connection is not a bundled link. Call concept are used to a VCAT connection, which is composed of multiple co-signaled member sets.How to advertise a link composed of the VCG can be developed in the context of call concept to avoid intermediate layer. But we do not have to exclude use of the same mechanism defined in hierarchy-bis for this purpose. Best regards, Kohei > Hi, > > IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. > > Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may > indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a > link in some specific network layer. > > LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped > together and the whole group is used as a link in another network layer. > > So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange > information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client > layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the > architecture) one might have three layers to consider... > > - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs > - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between > VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT > layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should > be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. > - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of > the VCAT layer LSP. > > Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be > considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture > defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them > explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide > the coordination with the client layer direct. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" > > To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg > Bernstein (E-mail)" > Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM > Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP > > > Hello Kohei and Greg, > > I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) > over VCAT server layer resources. > >> From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not >> clear how > will this exactly work. > > For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 > LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would > appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth > capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which > LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I > think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent > to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. > > Is there a defined way of handling this situation? > > Thanks, > Snigdho > > > > -- Kohei Shiomoto, Ph.D Senior Research Engineer, Supervisor, Group Leader NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories http://www.ntt.co.jp/islab/org/ns.html 3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone +81 422 59 4402 Fax +81 422 59 3787 Free online contents of "NTT Technical Review" available at https://www.ntt-review.jp/ Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:53:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:05 -0400 Subject: Re: New CCAMP I-Ds From: JP Vasseur To: Adrian Farrel , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds Thread-Index: AciJB6Go4Ce6dPT6EdyNXAANk8WjQA== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=85; t=1205851925; x=1206715925; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20New=20CCAMP=20I-Ds |Sender:=20 |To:=20Adrian=20Farrel=20,=20; bh=Pp4qKNWAKvHCksKMd9m7FrIGvvwh53eC5NCqNnlYxyQ=; b=aGOYsjwGo9jfoEKfYczfs3ljVUTuOMAcmCB7/aihJwL9MhX5wzQhyP/TdT 3QlnT9cE1SF7q+S6Yi4A6Wb8+w7JeiilzcNhUR18Yf7+FwNTXd98rjJRaYcr +QcE0TMKR0; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Hi, > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt In favor (I'm a co-author) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:54:48 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:48:55 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684013196B5@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: New CCAMP I-Ds thread-index: AciI+b1RRNVACLqlQt+6twh0HBU5CAABP1uw From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Hi guys, in line. BR Diego=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: marted=EC 18 marzo 2008 13.43 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list=20 > of potential new working group I-Ds. >=20 > We are splitting this list into three largely for our own=20 > sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first=20 > (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. >=20 > Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You=20 > are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt Yes :-) > draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt > draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Yes >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:49:48 +0000 Message-ID: <043e01c888f6$628ab910$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: New CCAMP I-Ds Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:43:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We took an action in Philadelphia to poll you on a long list of potential new working group I-Ds. We are splitting this list into three largely for our own sanity. Don't worry if your favorite I-D is not in the first (or second) batch. We will get to it by the end of the month. Can you please answer yes or no for the following I-Ds. You are encouraged to give reasons especially for negative responses). Thanks, Adrian and Deborah === draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero-01.txt draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:48 +0000 Message-ID: <041d01c888ea$da4a5b10$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Kohei Shiomoto $E-mail$" , "Greg Bernstein $E-mail$" Cc: "Ccamp $E-mail$" Subject: Re: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:25:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, IMHO the two drafts are not so closely related. Hierarchy bis describes how, when an LSP is set up, the ingress may indicate to the egress that the LSP is to be advertised or used as a link in some specific network layer. LSPs set up for VCAT are not used in that way. They are grouped together and the whole group is used as a link in another network layer. So, for VCAT, one might use the call as the mechanism to exchange information about how to use the entire VCG as a link in the client layer. Alternatively (if one is implementing strictly according to the architecture) one might have three layers to consider... - The server layer where a call coordinates multiple TDM LSPs - The VCAT layer where a single hop LSP is requested between VCG end points resulting in the server layer call. The VCAT layer LSP would use hierarchy bis to determine that it should be advertised as a TE link in the client layer. - The client layer where a magic TE link appears as the result of the VCAT layer LSP. Depending on the deployment, the use of a VCAT layer LSP might be considered to be over-engineering. Just because an architecture defines multiple layers, it does not mean you have to implement them explicitly. It might be enough for the server layer call to provide the coordination with the client layer direct. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" ; "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" ; "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Hello Kohei and Greg, I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over VCAT server layer resources. >From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear how will this exactly work. For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. Is there a defined way of handling this situation? Thanks, Snigdho Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:26:40 +0000 Message-ID: <041c01c888ea$a20042b0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Bardalai, Snigdho" , "Ccamp $E-mail$" Cc: "Lou Berger $E-mail$" Subject: Re: LSPID for Segment Recovery Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:18:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Snigdho, No-one else seems willing to answer you, so I'll pick it up... > I have a doubt on the relationship between LSPID and association > ID for tunnels with segment recovery. Would appreciate it if > someone could clarify. > > RFC4872 suggests using the working LSP's LSPID as the > association ID in the ASSOCIATION object for the recovery > LSP and the reverse for the working LSP and RFC4873 > requires the use of this definition as per the following extract: > > 2. Segment Recovery > > snip ...... snip > > When [RFC4090] isn't being used, the association between segment > recovery LSPs with other LSPs is indicated using the ASSOCIATION > object defined in [RFC4872] > > I would expect this definition includes the way the association > ID value should be assigned, is my understanding correct? > > I can understand how the ASSOCIATION object for the recovery > LSP can have its association ID set to the working LSP LSPID but > it may not be possible for the reverse since there could be multiple > recovery LSP segments. I think the clue may be in section 3.2.1 of RFC 4873 Recovery type processing procedures are the same as those defined in [RFC4872], but processing and identification occur with respect to segment recovery LSPs. Note that this means that multiple ASSOCIATION objects of type recovery may be present on an LSP. > I would like to understand what should the working LSP association > ID be in case of segment recovery, should it be set to its own LSPID? > > Also, my understanding is that the association ID needs to be unique > in the context of the association source, if that is the case does it > mean if LSPID is used as the association ID then the LSPID should > also be unique in the context of the association source rather than the > context of a tunnel. Association only happens between LSPs belonging to the same session. Thus, LSP ID is sufficiently unique. See 4872 for a fuller description. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:20:05 +0000 Message-ID: <01d601c88830$efe10b50$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Presentation skipped in Philadelphia Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:15:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Greg kindly sacrificed one of his slots on the agenda so that we could squeeze in everything else. Please don't forget to look at: c. Signaling Extensions for WSON (Greg - 10 mins [125/150]) Slides (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/ccamp-22.ppt) Background reading - draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-01.txt (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-01.txt) ...and send your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:29:07 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Message-Id: <20080315213001.BFDA23A6848@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-03-15 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits. This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-15141755.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:28:13 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB" Subject: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:25:43 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP Thread-Index: AciG0lx3duJDIC/4Tam/iLirW1e/Rw== From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" To: "Kohei Shiomoto (E-mail)" , "Greg Bernstein (E-mail)" Cc: "Ccamp (E-mail)" , "Adrian Farrel (E-mail)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Kohei and Greg, I have a question about client layer LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over = VCAT server layer resources. >From reading 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear = how will this exactly work. For example, we set up a VCAT group (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 = LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I believe each of these LSPs would = appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the client layer with bandwidth = capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). My question is which = LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the ethernet LSP, I = think an additional component link with bandwidth capacity equivalent to = the aggregate bandwidth will have to be created. Is there a defined way of handling this situation? Thanks, Snigdho ------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Signaling client layer LSP over VCAT server layer LSP
Hello Kohei and Greg,

I have a question about client layer = LSP signaling (e.g. ethernet) over VCAT server layer resources.

From reading = 'draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-03.txt' it is not clear how will = this exactly work.

For example, we set up a VCAT group = (i.e. by signaling multiple STS1 LSPs) as allowed by the VCAT ID. I = believe each of these LSPs would appear as LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACEs in the = client layer with bandwidth capacity equivalent to STS1 (i.e. 52mbps). = My question is which LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE will be used for signaling the = ethernet LSP, I think an additional component link with bandwidth = capacity equivalent to the aggregate bandwidth will have to be = created.

Is there a defined way of handling this = situation?

Thanks,
Snigdho
------_=_NextPart_001_01C886D2.5C8C78CB-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:38:03 +0000 Message-ID: <020801c88517$ab341b80$8c148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: Subject: Fw: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CCAMP : As discussed, we are bis-ing RFC 4420. We will complete this quickly. Please raise any other issues you would like to see fixed. MPLS : You may have missed this discussion. RFC 4420 had an RSVP-TE TLV format that differed from all other RSVP-TE TLV formats. CCAMP felt very strongly that this should be fixed very fast before there are any deployment issues. All : Please comment on whether we should deprecate any codepoints to avoid b/w compatibility issues, or whether you think it is OK to continue with existing codepoints? Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE > Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2008-03-13 > > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may > be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object > (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to > indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has > eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in > many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of > the previously unused bits. > > This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows > the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of > arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to > support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way > to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:00:22 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Message-Id: <20080313140001.3EF953A6E67@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-03-13 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits. This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-13065650.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:17:50 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8847E.14931D96" Subject: RE: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Thread-Index: AciEfdokZ6S4I1mPS26eCfJboMt4pwAADXDm From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." To: "Adrian Farrel" , Cc: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8847E.14931D96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks ________________________________ From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 3:14 PM To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Sadler, Jonathan B. Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Posted Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "dimitri papadimitriou" To: "Sadler, Jonathan B." Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck > hi - > > i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess they will be soon > available on the IETF material website > > > > thanks, > -d. > > > Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: >> Hi Dmitiri, >> I'm intersted in looking at the remainder of your slides (since we ran >> out of time and you didn't get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain >> there are people that were not in the room that would like to see all of >> the slides. Can you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to >> the list and/or Adrian? >> Thanks, >> Jonathan Sadler >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> The information contained in this message may be privileged >> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader >> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee >> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, >> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and >> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8847E.14931D96 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

Thanks

From: Adrian Farrel=20 [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 3:14 PM
To= :=20 dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Sadler, Jonathan B.
Cc:=20 Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:<= /B>=20 Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

Posted

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message=20 -----
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
To= :=20 "Sadler, Jonathan B." <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com>
Cc:=20 <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>;=20 <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:13=20 PM
Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck

>= hi=20 -
>
> i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess = they=20 will be soon
> available on the IETF material website
>
>=20 <https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/materials.html>
>
>=20 thanks,
> -d.
>
>
> Sadler, Jonathan B.=20 wrote:
>> Hi Dmitiri,
>> I'm intersted in looking a= t the=20 remainder of your slides (since we ran
>> out of time and you didn= 't=20 get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain
>> there are people= that=20 were not in the room that would like to see all of
>> the slides. = Can=20 you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to
>> the li= st=20 and/or Adrian?
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan=20 Sadler
>> =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> The=20 information contained in this message may be privileged
>> and=20 confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
>> of th= is=20 message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
>> or agent=20 responsible for delivering this message to the
>> intended recipie= nt,=20 you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
>> dissemination or=20 distribution of this communication is strictly
>> prohibited. If y= ou=20 have received this communication in error,
>> please notify us=20 immediately by replying to the message and
>> deleting it from you= r=20 computer. Thank you. Tellabs
>>=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8847E.14931D96-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:16:46 +0000 Message-ID: <010701c8847d$bdfeccf0$8c148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , "Sadler, Jonathan B." Cc: , Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Posted Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "dimitri papadimitriou" To: "Sadler, Jonathan B." Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck > hi - > > i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess they will be soon > available on the IETF material website > > > > thanks, > -d. > > > Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: >> Hi Dmitiri, >> I'm intersted in looking at the remainder of your slides (since we ran >> out of time and you didn't get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain >> there are people that were not in the room that would like to see all of >> the slides. Can you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to >> the list and/or Adrian? >> Thanks, >> Jonathan Sadler >> ============================================================ >> The information contained in this message may be privileged >> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader >> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee >> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, >> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and >> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs >> ============================================================ >> > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:14:24 +0000 Message-ID: <47D82B41.1070403@psg.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:13:05 +0100 From: dimitri papadimitriou Reply-To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sadler, Jonathan B." CC: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi - i sent the slide set to adrian this morning - so i guess they will be soon available on the IETF material website thanks, -d. Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: > Hi Dmitiri, > > I'm intersted in looking at the remainder of your slides (since we ran out of time and you didn't get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain there are people that were not in the room that would like to see all of the slides. Can you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to the list and/or Adrian? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Sadler > > ============================================================ > The information contained in this message may be privileged > and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee > or agent responsible for delivering this message to the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, > dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and > deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs > ============================================================ > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:41:02 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C88470.6753BD9C" Subject: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:36:13 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Ethernet Control Plane issues slide deck Thread-Index: AciEb/MbFNrGNmj3TEyi0nMCpzjlVg== From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." To: Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88470.6753BD9C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dmitiri, =20 I'm intersted in looking at the remainder of your slides (since we ran out = of time and you didn't get a chance to show them all) and I'm certain there= are people that were not in the room that would like to see all of the sli= des. Can you provide the slides you presented in CCAMP this AM to the list = and/or Adrian? =20 Thanks, =20 Jonathan Sadler =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88470.6753BD9C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dmitiri,

I'm intersted in looking at the remai= nder of=20 your slides (since we ran out of time and you didn't get a chance to show t= hem=20 all) and I'm certain there are people that were not in the room that would = like=20 to see all of the slides. Can you provide the slides you presente= d in=20 CCAMP this AM to the list and/or Adrian?

Thanks,

Jonathan Sadler

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------_=_NextPart_001_01C88470.6753BD9C-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:15 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt Message-Id: <20080312154501.8778528C3A0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Author(s) : L. Berger, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-03-12 This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs. The presented approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-12083153.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:17:06 +0000 Message-ID: <011701c8839b$77dd23d0$8c148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Slides for Wednesday Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:15:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I only have a few of the slidesets for Wednesday. Please don't forget. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:52 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: GMPLS TLV Format Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:12:03 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605601189@ftrdmel2> Thread-Topic: GMPLS TLV Format Thread-Index: AciC7+ZNBJc8g0w6SfOLNcxz7tBR1wAkVGmA From: To: , Cc: Hi. Agreed. But do you think a draft 4420bis "Created: March 11" and dated "03-10" on the CCAMP status page will be fast enough to progress back to 4420 publishing ages? ;-) Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Just to avoid any possible silence: I think fixing RFC 4420 *quickly* would be best. Lou At 04:02 PM 3/10/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >In today's meeting, we discussed again the issue of TLV formats in: > >- RFC 3209 and RFC 3471 >- RFC 4420 >- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt > >The current position is: >- Base RSVP-TE and GMPLS carry the full length of the > TLV in the Length field >- OSPF carries the length of the Value field only in the > TLV >- RFC 4420 follows the OSPF form. This was an error > that was not intended. >- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters followed > RFC 4420 (assuming that the WG had made a deliberate > change) > >The bottom line is that it is not helpful to implementers that one=20 >protocol has two different ways to encode TLVs. > >We must choose between three options. >1. All TLVs are encoded as per RFC 3209. > RFC 4420 would need to be fixed. > draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters would > need to be changed. >2. All TLVs *except* those in RFC 4420 use the > RFC 3209 format. RFC 4420 remains an anomaly. >3. All old TLVs remain as per RFC 3209. All new > TLVs (starting from RFC 4420) use the RFC 4420 > format. > >The meeting seemed to prefer option 1, but this is contingent on=20 >existing implementations. If there are too many existing and=20 >deployed implementations (too many =3D=3D 1 ?) we may have to pick to option 2. > >So... > >How would you feel if we did an update to RFC 4420 that fixed the=20 >TLV encoding to be conformant with RFC 3209? Would this cause any of=20 >you a problem? > >Reply on-list or to me in private if there is a confidentiality issue. > >It would be helpful to have opinions on both sides. Please don't=20 >leave silence to mean anything specific. > >Thanks, >Adrian > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:30:49 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: GMPLS TLV Format Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:29:27 -0700 Message-ID: <51661468CBD1354294533DA79E85955A6059D1@XCH-SW-5V2.sw.nos.boeing.com> Thread-Topic: GMPLS TLV Format Thread-Index: AciC8C7KY8r68SYySxCWDwwBM7h+3gAFmKuw From: "Drake, John E" To: "Lou Berger" , "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Indeed=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]=20 >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:38 PM >To: Adrian Farrel >Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >Subject: Re: GMPLS TLV Format > >Just to avoid any possible silence: > >I think fixing RFC 4420 *quickly* would be best. > >Lou > >At 04:02 PM 3/10/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>Hi, >> >>In today's meeting, we discussed again the issue of TLV formats in: >> >>- RFC 3209 and RFC 3471 >>- RFC 4420 >>- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt >> >>The current position is: >>- Base RSVP-TE and GMPLS carry the full length of the >> TLV in the Length field >>- OSPF carries the length of the Value field only in the >> TLV >>- RFC 4420 follows the OSPF form. This was an error >> that was not intended. >>- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters followed >> RFC 4420 (assuming that the WG had made a deliberate >> change) >> >>The bottom line is that it is not helpful to implementers that one=20 >>protocol has two different ways to encode TLVs. >> >>We must choose between three options. >>1. All TLVs are encoded as per RFC 3209. >> RFC 4420 would need to be fixed. >> draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters would >> need to be changed. >>2. All TLVs *except* those in RFC 4420 use the >> RFC 3209 format. RFC 4420 remains an anomaly. >>3. All old TLVs remain as per RFC 3209. All new >> TLVs (starting from RFC 4420) use the RFC 4420 >> format. >> >>The meeting seemed to prefer option 1, but this is contingent on=20 >>existing implementations. If there are too many existing and deployed=20 >>implementations (too many =3D=3D 1 ?) we may have to pick to option 2. >> >>So... >> >>How would you feel if we did an update to RFC 4420 that fixed the TLV=20 >>encoding to be conformant with RFC 3209? Would this cause any=20 >of you a=20 >>problem? >> >>Reply on-list or to me in private if there is a confidentiality issue. >> >>It would be helpful to have opinions on both sides. Please=20 >don't leave=20 >>silence to mean anything specific. >> >>Thanks, >>Adrian >> >> >> > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:18:14 +0000 Message-ID: <03bb01c88304$cad93700$3a87960a@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:16:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having received comments in favour of fixing 4420 both on and off list, here is an I-D showing what we would have to do to fix the issue. Comments please. I don't see any reason to delay this in the process apart from to give you all a chance to comment. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:30 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE > Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2008-03-10 > > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may > be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object > (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to > indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has > eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in > many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of > the previously unused bits. > > This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows > the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of > arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to > support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way > to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:29:40 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt Message-Id: <20080310223001.6D5DD3A6C51@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-03-10 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits. This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-03-10151748.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:01:05 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:00:13 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Thread-Index: AciCFnTkfyv1mhdzTtaIOtv9EJPZbgA2v/xg From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , Cc: , "Anca Zamfir (ancaz)" , "Newton, Jonathan" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1705; t=1205182816; x=1206046816; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-ccam p-mpls-graceful-shutdown |Sender:=20; bh=6NC8100uM7DYEFMOJXeMnvApwftjqaRW2Tw+U7FkIss=; b=DdJEVPHIjZkdQaowM1dhOD7xMA/0D4IXgL8L9Ys1mpZuxW0KMCr4EyfyHw Q9eYrKMhVOFvUfF2vlhAwyFSWzOqblck+oXnZIasqykFMWimM8ISGYAFGTF9 bcC7wz1GZlTeRyv2Saj//ZqxsM8ibT8ky8c5F00KXBdgxZ6sVL5z8=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Adrian-=20 On behalf of the authors, I am acking this action item on us.=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:48 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown >=20 > Hi, >=20 > This last call generated a lot of questions, issues and=20 > discussions on the list. >=20 > Authors: I know you got involved in the debate, so thanks.=20 > What you should do now is send mail to the list enumerating=20 > and summarising the issues raised. For each you can say=20 > whether resolved (and how), or your plan for resolution. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Farrel" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:06 AM > Subject: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown >=20 >=20 > > Hi, > > > > The authors of this draft have been indicating that they=20 > thought it was=20 > > complete for some time. They have now updated the document=20 > to fix various=20 > > formatting nits and minor issues raised in the working group. > > > > Therefore, this email marks the start of a working group=20 > last call on > >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-grac > eful-shutdown-05.txt=20 > > This is positioned to be an Informational RFC. > > > > The last call will end on Wednesday 5th March at 12 noon=20 > GMT. Please send=20 > > your comments to the list. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:38:31 +0000 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:37:35 -0400 To: "Adrian Farrel" From: Lou Berger Subject: Re: GMPLS TLV Format Cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: Just to avoid any possible silence: I think fixing RFC 4420 *quickly* would be best. Lou At 04:02 PM 3/10/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >In today's meeting, we discussed again the issue of TLV formats in: > >- RFC 3209 and RFC 3471 >- RFC 4420 >- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt > >The current position is: >- Base RSVP-TE and GMPLS carry the full length of the > TLV in the Length field >- OSPF carries the length of the Value field only in the > TLV >- RFC 4420 follows the OSPF form. This was an error > that was not intended. >- draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters followed > RFC 4420 (assuming that the WG had made a deliberate > change) > >The bottom line is that it is not helpful to implementers that one >protocol has two different ways to encode TLVs. > >We must choose between three options. >1. All TLVs are encoded as per RFC 3209. > RFC 4420 would need to be fixed. > draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters would > need to be changed. >2. All TLVs *except* those in RFC 4420 use the > RFC 3209 format. RFC 4420 remains an anomaly. >3. All old TLVs remain as per RFC 3209. All new > TLVs (starting from RFC 4420) use the RFC 4420 > format. > >The meeting seemed to prefer option 1, but this is contingent on >existing implementations. If there are too many existing and >deployed implementations (too many == 1 ?) we may have to pick to option 2. > >So... > >How would you feel if we did an update to RFC 4420 that fixed the >TLV encoding to be conformant with RFC 3209? Would this cause any of >you a problem? > >Reply on-list or to me in private if there is a confidentiality issue. > >It would be helpful to have opinions on both sides. Please don't >leave silence to mean anything specific. > >Thanks, >Adrian > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:04:43 +0000 Message-ID: <030e01c882e9$b1cca9b0$3a87960a@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: GMPLS TLV Format Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:02:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In today's meeting, we discussed again the issue of TLV formats in: - RFC 3209 and RFC 3471 - RFC 4420 - draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt The current position is: - Base RSVP-TE and GMPLS carry the full length of the TLV in the Length field - OSPF carries the length of the Value field only in the TLV - RFC 4420 follows the OSPF form. This was an error that was not intended. - draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters followed RFC 4420 (assuming that the WG had made a deliberate change) The bottom line is that it is not helpful to implementers that one protocol has two different ways to encode TLVs. We must choose between three options. 1. All TLVs are encoded as per RFC 3209. RFC 4420 would need to be fixed. draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters would need to be changed. 2. All TLVs *except* those in RFC 4420 use the RFC 3209 format. RFC 4420 remains an anomaly. 3. All old TLVs remain as per RFC 3209. All new TLVs (starting from RFC 4420) use the RFC 4420 format. The meeting seemed to prefer option 1, but this is contingent on existing implementations. If there are too many existing and deployed implementations (too many == 1 ?) we may have to pick to option 2. So... How would you feel if we did an update to RFC 4420 that fixed the TLV encoding to be conformant with RFC 3209? Would this cause any of you a problem? Reply on-list or to me in private if there is a confidentiality issue. It would be helpful to have opinions on both sides. Please don't leave silence to mean anything specific. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:11:52 +0000 Message-ID: <028301c882b8$77d01ca0$3a87960a@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Getting the right copy of the agenda Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:10:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please use http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/ccamp.htm NOT http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/ccamp.txt (No, I don't know why both are available) A Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:41:40 +0000 Message-ID: <020901c882b4$18fa4c40$3a87960a@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Slides for today Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:38:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Most of the slides for today's session are now uploaded (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/materials.html) and linked to from the agenda (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/ccamp.htm) A couple of presentations still missing. Hope to have them soon. Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:50:22 +0000 Message-ID: <00df01c88216$21e75800$3a87960a@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:48:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, This last call generated a lot of questions, issues and discussions on the list. Authors: I know you got involved in the debate, so thanks. What you should do now is send mail to the list enumerating and summarising the issues raised. For each you can say whether resolved (and how), or your plan for resolution. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown > Hi, > > The authors of this draft have been indicating that they thought it was > complete for some time. They have now updated the document to fix various > formatting nits and minor issues raised in the working group. > > Therefore, this email marks the start of a working group last call on > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-05.txt > This is positioned to be an Informational RFC. > > The last call will end on Wednesday 5th March at 12 noon GMT. Please send > your comments to the list. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:20:30 +0000 Message-ID: <013701c88159$55bb2660$9dac1cac@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Agenda updated Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:16:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, An HTML agenda is now in place with a couple of minor updates because of folk not travelling. Please check: - Are you talking? - Have you sent your slides? - Have I posted them? Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:12:38 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Agenda planning Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:10:01 -0600 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF107C55D3@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: Agenda planning thread-index: Ach+SIxcGZ3nLJ5jTcyebxs4nrVVNwAkuScgADAjz+A= From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: Cc: "Adrian Farrel" Hi, The agenda was updated (slightly)- Adrian and Deborah=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:15 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Agenda planning Hi, A tentative agenda is uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/ccamp.txt Please send any additional requests/comments to us and don't forget we need your presentations (especially Monday's session) asap. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:29:42 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 03:27:02 -0600 Message-ID: <4A5028372622294A99B8FFF6BD06EB7B0400D366@USDALSMBS03.ad3.ad.alcatel.com> Thread-Topic: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Thread-Index: Ach5PAJyNCCsLW90RVGsQfj2WiuWNQFn2qKAACFStHA= From: "AISSAOUI Mustapha" To: Dear all, below are my comments on this draft. I apologize if some of these have already been raised. Mustapha. 1. Second paragraph in the introduction states: "Graceful shutdown of a resource may require several steps. These=20 steps can be broadly divided into two sets: disabling the=20 resource in the control plane and removing the resource for=20 forwarding." I do not believe that this document achieves the disabling of the resource in the control plane. What it provides is a way to facilitate diverting LSPs away from the resource by making it a last resort resource. After IGP advertized the max TE metric of 0xFFFFFF for a link, a CSPF LSP with zero bandwidth can still have its path go over this link. 2. Second paragraph of Section 3 reads: "- Once an operator has initiated graceful shutdown of a network=20 resource, no new TE LSPs may be set up that use the resource.=20 Any signaling message for a new LSP that explicitly specifies the=20 resource, or that would require the use of the resource due to=20 local constraints, must be rejected as if the resource were=20 unavailable." I do not believe this draft achieves this requirement. There is no mechanism specified for a node to reject a new session reservation with zero bandwidth over the resource being gracefully shutdown. 3. Second paragraph of Section 4 states: "A node where a link or the whole node is being shutdown SHOULD=20 first trigger the IGP updates as described in Section 4.1,=20 introduce a delay to allow network convergence and only then use=20 the signaling mechanism described in Section 4.2. " I propose to remove this altohgether. This does not guarantee that an LSP for which a PathErr was sent will not be re-signaled over the resource being shutdown. The reason being that most implementation provide configurable delays between consecutive floodings of LSAs/LSPs. It is up to the implementation at the headend node to decide how long to hold for the list of interface address in the PathErr message to allow for the flooding of the IGP TE information. 4. Last paragraph of Section 4.1.1 reads: "Neighbors of the node where graceful shutdown procedure is in=20 progress SHOULD continue to advertise the actual unreserved=20 bandwidth of the TE links from the neighbors to that node,=20 without any routing adjacency change." This is not exactly correct. If you wanted to have both outgoing LSPs and incoming LSPs over the interface to be diverted, you will need to enable the graceful shutdown procedures on both sides of the interface. This means the procedures should be applied to the neigbour of a p2p interface. 5. Section 4.2 states the following: "The Graceful Shutdown=20 mechanism outlined in the following section, uses PathErr and=20 where available, Notify message, in order to achieve this=20 requirement. These mechanisms apply to both existing and new=20 LSPs." As explained above, the mechanisms described in this document do not prevent the establishment of new LSP over the resource being flagged for graceful shutdown. Only existing LSPs at the time the user enables graceful shutdown on a link are affected. 6. Second paragraph of Section 4.2.1 reads: "When a graceful shutdown operation is performed along the path of=20 a protected LSP, based on a local decision, the PLR or branch=20 node MAY redirect the traffic onto the local detour or protecting=20 segment. In all cases, the PLR or branch node MUST forward the=20 PathErr to the head-end node, border node, or PCE." This does not make sense. A PLR node will only take action on receipt of the PathErr message for LSPs **it originates**. FRR procedures do not react to PathErr messages unless you are proposing to change RFC 4379. 7. Last paragraph of Section 4.2.1 reads: "When a head-end node, border node, or PCE receives a PathErr (or=20 Notify) message with error value of " Local link maintenance=20 required", it MAY trigger a make-before-break procedure. When=20 performing path computation for the new LSP, the head-end node,=20 border node, or PCE SHOULD avoid using the TE resources=20 identified by the IP address contained in the PathErr (or Notify=20 message)" It should be clarified that the head-end node will exclude the use of TE resource in path computation for a period of time only. The head-end node has no way of knowing in the future if a link in a downstream node is still flagged for graceful shutdown and thus cannot hold to the information in PathErr forever. The fact that a metric of a link remains set to 0xffffff in the TE database cannot be taken to mean that the link is still in graceful shutdown. It just means that this link will contibute to a high cost for a CSPF path using it.=20 --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > At 06:06 AM 2/13/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >> > > >>The authors of this draft have been indicating that they > > thought it was > > >>complete for some time. They have now updated the document > > to fix various > > >>formatting nits and minor issues raised in the working group. > > >> > > >>Therefore, this email marks the start of a working group > > last call on > > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gr > aceful-shutdown-05.txt=20 > > >>This is positioned to be an Informational RFC. > > >> > > >>The last call will end on Wednesday 5th March at 12 noon > > GMT. Please send > > >>your comments to the list. > > >> > > >>Thanks, > > >>Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:16:16 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Agenda planning Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:14:33 -0600 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF107C4C56@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: Agenda planning thread-index: Ach+SIxcGZ3nLJ5jTcyebxs4nrVVNwAkuScg From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: Cc: "Adrian Farrel" Hi, A tentative agenda is uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/ccamp.txt Please send any additional requests/comments to us and don't forget we need your presentations (especially Monday's session) asap. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:35 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Agenda planning Hi, You may have noticed that your chairs are even more disorganised than usual=20 this time around. (Plenty of excuses, but those are no help to you. Bring back Kireeti! :-) We have two sessions: - Monday 13.00 - 15.00 - Wednesday 9.00 - 11.30 The provisional plan is to put routine working group business on the Monday.=20 This will include: - working group status - ITU-T liaison activity - progress of working group drafts - other assorted drafts We will then split the Wednesday session between Ethernet and WSON. Please send us your requests for slots and we will try to get a more=20 detailed agenda out soon. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:16:10 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:11:58 -0000 Message-ID: <4727AF472FEE6A4EB87D83210CF11CDC08B253BE@GBCWSWIEM001.ad.plc.cwintra.com> Thread-Topic: WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown Thread-Index: Ach5PAJyNCCsLW90RVGsQfj2WiuWNQFn2qKA From: "Newton, Jonathan" To: "Adrian Farrel" , "Lou Berger" Cc: Hi=20Adrian=20/=20Lou, With=20respect=20to=20the=20comments=20on=20the=20mechanism=20to=20trigger= =20the=20ingress=20LSP to=20perform=20a=20make-before-break,=20the=20draft=20already=20references= =204736=20for definition=20of=20the=20required=20pathErr=20codes. I=20have=20only=20had=20a=20quick=20look=20over=204920,=20but=20I=20would=20= suggest=20that=20there should=20not=20be=20overlap=20with=20crankback=20for=20a=20couple=20of=20r= easons: 1/To=20me,=20crankback=20is=20targeted=20at=20LSP=20setup=20time=20rather=20= than=20in-service LSPs=20(stand=20to=20be=20corrected=20here!). 2/The=20ingress=20LSR=20seems=20to=20need=20to=20request=20the=20crankback= =20information, making=20this=20a=20much=20more=20involved=20implementation=20and=20requir= ing=20advanced configuration=20at=20the=20ingress=20node. With=20respect=20to=20Soft-preemption:=20Whilst=20I=20can=20clearly=20see=20= the=20overlap, to=20me=20there=20are=20some=20reasons=20why=20it=20may=20not=20be=20appro= priate=20to=20combine these=20in=20any=20way: 1/=20We=20would=20want=20the=20ingress=20element=20to=20be=20aware=20of,=20= in=20order=20to=20log, the=20reason=20for=20the=20MBB=20request=20and=20soft-preemption=20only=20= has=20a=20single 'soft=20preemption=20desired'=20flag. 2/=20In=20the=20case=20of=20graceful=20shutdown,=20the=20actual=20removal=20= of=20the=20resource has=20not=20yet=20occurred=20and=20it=20may=20be=20up=20to=20operator=20di= scretion=20whether=20to continue=20with=20the=20resource=20removal=20in=20the=20case=20that=20LSPs= =20remain.=20=20In=20the case=20of=20soft-preemption,=20the=20event=20has=20already=20occurred=20(t= he=20pre-empting LSP=20is=20already=20admitted).=20=20=20 Cheers, ~Jon.=20 >=20-----Original=20Message----- >=20From:=20owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 >=20[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]=20On=20Behalf=20Of=20Adrian=20Farrel= >=20Sent:=2027=20February=202008=2012:10 >=20To:=20Lou=20Berger >=20Cc:=20ccamp@ops.ietf.org >=20Subject:=20Re:=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gracefu= l-shutdown >=20 >=20Lou, >=20 >=20What=20you=20say=20about=20"triggered=20make-before-break"=20is=20inte= resting. >=20We=20should=20also=20look=20at=20the=20overlap=20between=20this=20work= =20and=20RFC=20 >=204736=20and=20RFC=204920. >=20 >=20Adrian >=20-----=20Original=20Message=20----- >=20From:=20"Lou=20Berger"=20 >=20To:=20"Adrian=20Farrel"=20 >=20Cc:=20 >=20Sent:=20Tuesday,=20February=2026,=202008=209:13=20PM >=20Subject:=20Re:=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gracefu= l-shutdown >=20 >=20 >=20>=20Here=20are=20some=20last=20call=20comments=20on=20this=20draft: >=20> >=20>=20-=20Opening/general=20comment: >=20>=20=20=20"Category:=20Informational"=20and >=20>=20=20=20"Conventions=20used=20in=20this=20document >=20> >=20>=20=20=20=20The=20key=20words=20"MUST",=20"MUST=20NOT",=20"REQUIRED",= =20"SHALL",=20"SHALL >=20>=20=20=20=20NOT",=20"SHOULD",=20"SHOULD=20NOT",=20"RECOMMENDED",=20"M= AY",=20and >=20>=20=20=20=20"OPTIONAL"=20in=20this=20document=20are=20to=20be=20inter= preted=20as=20described=20in >=20>=20=20=20=20RFC-2119=20[RFC2119]" >=20> >=20>=20=20=20=20Given=20this=20is=20NOT=20a=20standards=20track=20documen= t,=20the=20use=20of=20RFC2119 >=20>=20=20=20=20style=20directives=20is=20misleading=20and=20should=20not= =20be=20used. >=20> >=20>=20-=20Section=202,=20a=20nit: >=20>=20=20=20"temporarily=20or=20definitely". >=20> >=20>=20=20=20I=20think=20you=20mean=20indefinitely. >=20> >=20>=20-=20Section=203: >=20>=20=20=20"-=20If=20the=20resource=20being=20shutdown=20is=20a=20last=20= resort,=20it=20can=20be >=20>=20=20=20=20used.=20Time=20or=20decision=20for=20removal=20of=20the=20= resource=20being=20shutdown >=20>=20=20=20=20is=20based=20on=20a=20local=20decision=20at=20the=20node=20= initiating=20the=20graceful >=20>=20=20=20=20shutdown=20procedure.=20" >=20> >=20>=20=20=20"Last=20resort"=20should=20be=20defined=20in=20technical=20t= erms.=20=20Also=20it's=20not >=20>=20=20=20clear=20how=20this=20requirement=20is=20being=20met=20by=20t= he=20draft. >=20> >=20>=20-=20Section=204.2: >=20>=20=20=20"The=20Graceful=20Shutdown >=20>=20=20=20=20mechanism=20outlined=20in=20the=20following=20section,=20= uses=20PathErr=20and >=20>=20=20=20=20where=20available,=20Notify=20message,=20in=20order=20to=20= achieve=20this >=20>=20=20=20=20requirement.=20These=20mechanisms=20apply=20to=20both=20e= xisting=20and=20new >=20>=20=20=20=20LSPs." >=20> >=20>=20=20=20=20This=20comment=20really=20applies=20to=20the=20whole=20se= ction.=20=20This=20section >=20>=20=20=20=20seems=20to=20be=20quite=20a=20bit=20more=20than=20what=20= you'd=20expect=20to=20find=20in >=20>=20=20=20=20an=20informational=20document.=20=20I=20think=20this=20co= mment=20given=20the=20next >=20>=20=20=20=20comment: >=20> >=20>=20=20=20=20From=20a=20high-level=20perspective,=20it=20seems=20to=20= me=20what's=20trying=20to >=20>=20=20=20=20accomplish=20in=20this=20section=20is=20to=20trigger=20MB= B=20based=20on=20a >=20>=20=20=20=20management=20plane=20directive=20to=20gracefully=20shutdo= wn=20a >=20>=20=20=20=20resource/link/node.=20=20Given=20this,=20it=20seems=20tha= t=20this=20objective >=20>=20=20=20=20is=20the=20same=20as=20that=20which=20soft-preemption=20p= rovides,=20and=20that=20it >=20>=20=20=20=20doesn't=20really=20make=20sense=20to=20have=20two=20docum= ents=20(which=20just=20so >=20>=20=20=20=20happen=20to=20be=20going=20through=20last=20call=20at=20t= he=20same=20time)=20that >=20>=20=20=20=20provide=20the=20identical=20functionality.=20=20As=20this= =20document=20is >=20>=20=20=20=20targeted=20as=20an=20informational=20document,=20perhaps=20= it=20would=20be=20best >=20>=20=20=20=20to=20replace=20all=20of=204.2=20with=20a=20recommendation= =20to=20use=20soft >=20>=20=20=20=20preemption=20signaling=20procedures=20to=20support=20grac= eful=20shutdown. >=20> >=20>=20=20=20=20Given=20this=20comment=20-=20I'll=20skip=20detailed=20com= ments=20on=204.2... >=20> >=20>=20Lou >=20> >=20>=20At=2006:06=20AM=202/13/2008,=20Adrian=20Farrel=20wrote: >=20>>Hi, >=20>> >=20>>The=20authors=20of=20this=20draft=20have=20been=20indicating=20that=20= they=20 >=20thought=20it=20was=20 >=20>>complete=20for=20some=20time.=20They=20have=20now=20updated=20the=20= document=20 >=20to=20fix=20various=20 >=20>>formatting=20nits=20and=20minor=20issues=20raised=20in=20the=20worki= ng=20group. >=20>> >=20>>Therefore,=20this=20email=20marks=20the=20start=20of=20a=20working=20= group=20 >=20last=20call=20on >=20>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gr aceful-shutdown-05.txt=20 >=20>>This=20is=20positioned=20to=20be=20an=20Informational=20RFC. >=20>> >=20>>The=20last=20call=20will=20end=20on=20Wednesday=205th=20March=20at=20= 12=20noon=20 >=20GMT.=20Please=20send=20 >=20>>your=20comments=20to=20the=20list. >=20>> >=20>>Thanks, >=20>>Adrian >=20>> >=20>> >=20>> >=20> >=20> >=20>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 This=20e-mail=20has=20been=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20by=20the=20Cable=20= &=20Wireless=20e-mail=20security=20system=20-=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs= .=20For=20more=20information=20on=20a=20proactive=20managed=20e-mail=20sec= urity=20service,=20visit=20http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/=20 The=20information=20contained=20in=20this=20e-mail=20is=20confidential=20a= nd=20may=20also=20be=20subject=20to=20legal=20privilege.=20It=20is=20inten= ded=20only=20for=20the=20recipient(s)=20named=20above.=20If=20you=20are=20= not=20named=20above=20as=20a=20recipient,=20you=20must=20not=20read,=20cop= y,=20disclose,=20forward=20or=20otherwise=20use=20the=20information=20cont= ained=20in=20this=20email.=20If=20you=20have=20received=20this=20e-mail=20= in=20error,=20please=20notify=20the=20sender=20(whose=20contact=20details=20= are=20above)=20immediately=20by=20reply=20e-mail=20and=20delete=20the=20me= ssage=20and=20any=20attachments=20without=20retaining=20any=20copies. =20 Cable=20and=20Wireless=20plc=20 Registered=20in=20England=20and=20Wales.Company=20Number=20238525=20 Registered=20office:=207th=20Floor,=20The=20Point,=2037=20North=20Wharf=20= Road,=20London=20W2=201LA Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:38:15 +0000 Message-ID: <076401c87e48$0ae0f840$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Agenda planning Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:35:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, You may have noticed that your chairs are even more disorganised than usual this time around. (Plenty of excuses, but those are no help to you. Bring back Kireeti! :-) We have two sessions: - Monday 13.00 - 15.00 - Wednesday 9.00 - 11.30 The provisional plan is to put routine working group business on the Monday. This will include: - working group status - ITU-T liaison activity - progress of working group drafts - other assorted drafts We will then split the Wednesday session between Ethernet and WSON. Please send us your requests for slots and we will try to get a more detailed agenda out soon. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:25 +0000 Message-ID: <049801c87c5c$de287d10$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: ITU-T Re-review of RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:59:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We heard that the ITU-T SG15 was not happy with the analysis of ASON routing produced by the design team and captured in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652. We sent https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/356/ soliciting further review and input. This has given rise to a response (asking us to act by 15th September 2008). The text of the response is brief: "ITU-T thanks IETF for the opportunity to review RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 to determine if the RFCs contain ITU-T's current requirements for ASON routing. Attached to this liaison is the result of the review, which looks at the requirements in the current in-force versions of G.8080, G.7715 and G.7715.1 and determines if RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 documents ITU-T's existing as well as new requirements. We would appreciate collaborating with IETF in the review of the attached table as well as resolving the gaps between the ITU-T documents and the RFCs. We look forward to work with the IETF to resolve this gap. Please advise on the best method of working together to resolve this issue." The analysis of the requirements is provided in an attachment which you can find at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file531.pdf Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:54:31 +0000 Message-ID: <049401c87c5c$1cefc450$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Received liaison on VCAT from ITU-T Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:53:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The ITU-T SG15 has responded to our liaison on the VCAT/LCAS work. A response is requested by 15th September 2008. The liaison also contains a short comment on our liaison about GMPLS calls. You can see the liaison through the ccamp page www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm The text of the liaison is included below. Adrian === Q14/15 thanks you for your liaison of 1st February 2008 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=415, which is TD515 (WP3/15)). Here are our comments to the responses provided in your liaison: a) Regarding your response to Question 1 on protocol extensibility to encompass technologies other than SONET/SDH, we notice that the recent I-D (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas- 04.txt) limits the number of VCGs per call to one. We support this position and consider this to be a VCAT call. b) Regarding your response to Question 4 on multiple calls support, VCAT is viewed as a layer of its own and has its own call controller. As per the interlayer architecture in G.8080 section 6.6, the VCAT call would be associated with a server layer call or calls, each of which would have/own one or more server layer connections. It is these connections that are part of the VCG. In retrospect, a single call is sufficient for diverse routing as it can hold details of both connections so that they don't use the same resources. An example where multiple server calls associated with one VCAT call would be useful is when all VCAT connections are to be protected. Here, rather than one call maintain the knowledge of all working/protection pairs, it is simpler to have multiple calls each of which only maintains one working/protection pair. This is even more convenient when restoration behavior is applied when the protection connection fails. c) Regarding your response to Question 6 on IP address format in GMPLS, we suggest the I-D clarifies that there are different name (or identifier) spaces even though they may all use the same IP address format, e.g. - Control component The identifiers used to identify the entities that perform the control plane functions, such as route computation, signaling, control plane message delivering, etc. - Transport resource The identifiers used to identify transport resource when they are referred to in the control plane messages. Note that these identifiers may not be the same as those referred to in the management plane messages. - SCN The addresses used to deliver control plane messages Examples of a similar address format in use in two different name spaces can be seen in the OSPF routing protocol, where router ID (control and transport link scope) and IP address (used by the forwarder) do not have to be the same. Regarding your liaison response on GMPLS Calls (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=414, which is TD516 (WP3/15)), thank you for your response. We do not have any further reply at this time and appreciate the invitation for future input to CCAMP. An electronic copy of this liaison statement is available at: ftp://ftp.itu.int/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/index.html Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:49:18 +0000 Message-ID: <049001c87c5b$2025de80$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Liaison on ITU-T Work Plan Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:46:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have received a copy of the ITU-T's Optical Transport Networks and Technologies Standardization Work Plan for our review and comment. The liaison reads: "Thank you for your review and comments for "Optical Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan". Attached is the updated version from this SG15 meeting (Geneva, 11 - 22 February 2008). This version reflects recent development of related standards and your valuable input. We appreciate your review of this version and comments." You can find a copy of the work plan at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com15/otn/index.html You can find all CCAMP correspondence at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:26:00 +0000 Message-ID: <044f01c87c4f$2d7852e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Incoming liaison from ITU-T Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:19:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have been copied on a liaison from the ITU-T Study Group 15 to the Routing Area Directors and the IAB. The text of the liaison is: "As the result of a break-out meeting to discuss existing and upcoming ASON routing topics, it was agreed that the scope of this technology crossed the domains of expertise of multiple IETF WGs but needs focused attention. Thus, we would like to request formation of an IETF Exploratory Working Group, or other appropriate mechanism, to start jointly addressing these topics." As usual, all liaisons are tracked at http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm We will let you know more information as the ADs and IAB consider their response. Cheers, Adrian