Subject: Re: Re: MPLS PWs over IP: Text for draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-04.txt

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:00:30 +0000

Eric Rosen wrote:

> Luca> however, I sense that consensus is to leave the text as is
> 
> Rahul> Its your  call to  add the MPLS-OVER-IP-GRE  reference now or  in the
> Rahul> next round of editing.  
> 
> Not unless the WG agrees to the change! 
> 

Exactly, the text MUST reflect WG consensus.

> Given that (a)  the control protocol spec has already  passed last call, (b)
> no  technical  problem has  been  raised, and  (c)  the  proposed change  is
> controversial, I see no reason why any such change should be made. 
> 
> As there  hasn't been  any new information  or substantive new  arguments in
> some weeks,  how about  a ruling  from the WG  chairs so  we can  close this
> issue?  

Danny and I talked about this yesterday, and are of the opinion that PWE3
must be agnostic to the method of carrying MPLS over an IP network. Any
change must therefore be in the direction of REMOVING reference to any
specific technique for encapsulating MPLS over IP.

Stewart

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:11:58 -0700

Also:

; if the PSN tunnel is, e.g., a GRE tunnel, then putting on the tunnel 
encapsulation requires prepending  an IP header and a GRE header.

needs to go.

Luca

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:09:02 -0700

Stewart,

I propose to change this :

 Any sort of PSN tunnel can be used, as long as it is possible  to 
transmit MPLS packets through it.  The PSN tunnel can itself be an LSP,  
but it could equally well be an IP tunnel, a GRE tunnel, an IPsec 
tunnel, or any other sort of tunnel which can carry MPLS packets. 
Procedures for setting up and maintaining the PSN tunnels are outside 
the scope of this  document.

To:
Any sort of PSN tunnel can be used, as long as it is possible  to 
transmit MPLS packets through it.  The PSN tunnel can itself be an LSP,  
or any other sort of tunnel which can carry MPLS packets. Procedures for 
setting up and maintaining the PSN tunnels are outside the scope of 
this  document.

If this is ok , I will send out the update .

Luca

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:06:56 -0500

> setting up and maintaining the PSN tunnels are outside the scope of 

Add something like "as are the tunnel encapsulation mechanisms for
carrying MPLS packets."

Scott

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:17:41 +0000

Yes, that's OK

Stewart

Luca Martini wrote:

>>> Rahul> next round of editing. Not unless the WG agrees to the change!
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:17:00 +0000

Looks good to me

Stewart

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:23:22 -0700

ok
something like :

Any sort of PSN tunnel can be used, as long as it is possible  to 
transmit MPLS packets through it.  The PSN tunnel can itself be an LSP,  
or any other sort of tunnel which can carry MPLS packets. 
The procedure for encapsulating MPLS packets in PSN tunnels, or the setup and 
maintenance of PSN tunnels is outside the scope of this document.

Luca