Subject: [CCAMP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 07:10:22 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just wondering: does this (or some other document) provide me
with a way to say that node X should take an input lambda and
replicate it out twice? (I.e. forking the traffic) If so, then
that probably ought be noted somewhere as it'd enable forms of
monitoring that might otherwise require a visit to the physical
node.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:26:32 -0400

Hi Stephen,

See below.

On 05/26/2015 10:10 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> replicate it out twice? 

RFC4875 allows this under signaled control. So nothing new is introduced
by this document.

> (I.e. forking the traffic) If so, then

I'm sorry, I don't understand this.  signaling allows one to automate
what is already possible via other mechanisms, e.g., network management.
 If the equipment requires a physical change to provision/split (aka
drop and continue) a lambda, adding support for signaling doesn't change
this.

Lou

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:48:04 +0100

> RFC4875 allows this under signaled control. So nothing new is introduced

Thanks. That's all I was after - I really was just curious
and not trying to find a problem with this draft:-)

S.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:28:34 -0400

Stephen,

No problem and I was trying to respond to the comment.  I just didn't
quite understand the point you were making.  It sounds like the comment
is addressed so we don't need to discuss and further.  Do feel free to
respond privately if you want more background info...

Thanks,
Lou