Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-02 a WG document

From: "gyzhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:22:41 +0800

Yes. Support.

Guoying

2012-06-04 

gyzhang 

All,
This is to start a two week poll on making
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-02 a ccamp working
group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical
reservations with the document.
The poll ends Monday June 4.
Please note that this document aims to satisfy certain MPLS-TP
requirements that the WG has identified as part of RFC6373.
Much thanks,
Lou (and Deborah)
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:25:04 -0400

All,
	This poll is complete.

Authors,
	Based on the poll-related discussion, it seems that we have consensus
(albeit a bit reluctant) on RSVP-TE communicating the Z9 Tunnel_Num to
the ingress of a corouted bidirectional LSP to meet the requirements of
RFCs 6370 and 6428.  Based on the discussion and confusion related to
the draft, we ask that you revise your draft to limit its scope
(discussion & solution) to just this requirement.  Once this revision is
made, the WG can then decide how move this work forward.

Thank you,
Lou (and Deborah)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:19:47 +0800

Hi Lou

Thanks for the suggestion, we can scope the document to communicate 
Z9_tunnel_num for corouted bidirectional LSP as soon as possible.

What about the parts of exchanging each other's global_ID in the draft(if 
corouted and associated bidirectional LSPs are across different domains)? 
Just left for further discussion then address them? IMHO, the 
corresponding requirements can also be deduced from RFC6370 and RFC6428 
directly.

Best regards

Fei

Lou Berger <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2012-06-07 04:25

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送

主题
Re: [CCAMP] poll on making 
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-02 a WG document

All,
                 This poll is complete.

Authors,
                 Based on the poll-related discussion, it seems that we 
have consensus

Thank you,
Lou (and Deborah)

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:11:29 -0400

Fei.
	see below.

On 6/7/2012 3:19 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> What about the parts of exchanging each other's global_ID in the
> draft(if corouted and associated bidirectional LSPs are across different
> domains)?

Isn't this already covered in draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext?

I thought both your document and
ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp could use any association
object.  If you want to ensure this is understood, you can always add
something in this document and in
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp along the lines of:
"The Association Types defined in this document MAY be used with any
ASSOCIATION object type. For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object
defined in [assoc-ext] can be used when Global ID based identification
is desired."

or is there something more to it?

Lou

> *Lou Berger <[email-masked]>*

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:23:30 +0800

Lou 

Got it and the new version has been uploaded, which is scoped into the 
requirement and solution of communicating Z9-Tunnnel_Num for co-routed 
bidirectional LSP.

Below is the link 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03 
for more details.

Best regards

Fei

2012-06-07 22:11

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题

Fei.
                 see below.

Lou