Subject: Opinion on two new WG drafts

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:04:51 -0000

Our charter encourages us to work on inter-domain solutions.
There are two drafts which we should consider as working group drafts:
- draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp-00.txt
- draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt

In Minneapolis the room seemed to be in favor with two caveats:
- draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp must include a
  statement clarifying that in the context of this draft, the node in
  charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is always along
  the inter-domain TE LSP path
- draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt must wait
   for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching-00.txt to become a
   CCAMP draft

Assuming these requirements to be fulfilled, please say whether you
support these drafts becoming CCAMP drafts. A simple yes/no is enough, but
reasons against are useful.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:36:54 +0100

adrian, just to be sure the first reference is not available, so be sure 
that we are discussing the correct document do you refer to

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-00.txt>

now the second document appears to me to be already a working group 
document - so would you clarify the below question ?

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-00.txt>

i have already send a bunch of comment on this document (from its non-WG 
version so expect to see some discussion on the next version), an 
additional remark would be that the sentence "There are three ways in 
which an RSVP-TE LSP could be signaled across multiple domains:" is not 
precise enough to translate the fact there are two ways (and not three) 
one that does use a unique end-to-end RSVP session (contiguous) and 
another that allows usage of intermediate RSVP session(s) used to 
establish the end-to-end session; currently there are three (and not 
two) methods that can be used for the second way: stitching (the 
head-end intermediate node performs selection of the segment), splicing 
(the LSP head-end node performs selection of the segment, using explicit 
label control), and nesting

note: the second method is detailed in RFC 3471, section 6,

thanks,
- dimitri.

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> .

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:16:55 -0000

Thanks to those of you who pointed out my mistake on and off the list.

To set things straight...

1. We have already accepted draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te as a
WG draft and it has been published as
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te

2. I have seen consensus for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching to be
published as a WG draft and the authors will submit it as
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching soon

3. The name of the third draft is
draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp. This is the draft that we
need to consider.

As JP says, he plans to add the sentence "In the context of this draft,
the node in charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is always along
the inter-domain TE LSP path" to this draft.

Question: With the addition of this sentence, are we content to accept
this draft as a WG draft?

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Zafar Ali" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:36:50 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:17 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: WG drafts - My correction
> 
> 1. We have already accepted 
> draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te as a WG draft and 
> it has been published as draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te
> 
> 2. I have seen consensus for 
> draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching to be published as a WG 
> draft and the authors will submit it as 
> draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp. This is the 
> draft that we need to consider.
> 
> As JP says, he plans to add the sentence "In the context of 
> this draft, the node in charge of any ERO expansion within 
> its domain is always along the inter-domain TE LSP path" to 
> this draft.
> 
> Question: With the addition of this sentence, are we content 
> to accept this draft as a WG draft?

Yes, 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

---

From: Kenji Kumaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:36:21 +0900

> this draft as a WG draft?

Yes.

Thanks,
Kenji

-- 
Kenji Kumaki <[email-masked]>