Subject: Re: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:36:56 -0000

I support.
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
To: "pwe3" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

> 
> At IETF62 the authors of
> 
> Setup and Maintenance of Pseudowires using RSVP-TE
> ftp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt
> 
> asked for the draft to become a WG draft.
> 
> What is the view of members of the PWE3 WG?
> 
> Stewart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
>

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:41:16 -0500

Personally speaking, I don't think that it is useful
for the WG to spend time and effort re-inventing
the wheel, so to speak, which is what this draft
represents. We already have a protocol for
signaling PWs that works, and is deployed. If
there were some significant advantage to signaling
PWs using an alternative means, I would think
otherwise, but it seems this is just being proposed
as an alternative means for achieving the same
end result.

	--Tom

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:33:30 -0500

I oppose accepting this draft as a WG draft. 

We already have  two PW setup protocols, and there  has been no demonstrated
need for a third. 

Anyone who  thinks that  this draft is  even worth considering  should first
attempt to attain consensus on  the requirements for the traffic engineering
of multi-segment  pseudowires.  Then they should be  prepared to demonstrate
that the requirements cannot be met with the existing model.

Neither one of these efforts has taken place. 

To take  this a  bit further, I  would say  that with the  existing protocol
model, traffic engineering of PWs  reduces to the traffic engineering of the
PSN  tunnels through which  the PWs  travel.  The  tunnel setup  protocol is
independent of  the PW setup protocol, and  RSVP-TE could be used  to set up
the tunnels.  I don't see what's  lacking in this model, but perhaps someone
can provide a detailed example  in which some putative requirement cannot be
met with this  model.  That would help us to  understand whether the claimed
need  for a new  protocol is  based on  facts, or  is just  another tiresome
"let's have another protocol war" effort.

If it  turns out that  the only shortfall  with existing procedures  is that
existing PW setup protocols need to  carry some opaque parameters to pass to
the tunnel setup  parameters, I would not  say that that is a  defect in the
existing model.

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:17:15 -0700

Stewart,

I do not support accepting the document as a WG document.

As it stands it does not even fit in the pwe3 charter. Routing and 
placement of PWs is out of pwe3 scope.
However even if this document was reduced to a point to point single hop 
PW specification I still think that there is no need for another PW 
protocol, that duplicates the functions of the PSN.
We should work on specifying requirements , and at least agree of 
terminology before we even consider starting over in protocol design to 
solve the multi segment ( Hop )  PW problem.

Luca

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:24:51 -0800 (PST)

> What is the view of members of the PWE3 WG?

I think this should be a WG doc.

Kireeti.
-------

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:54:59 -0800

I don't think either this or any other solution to the M{H|S}-PW problem
should be a WG document until the charter is modified and the
requirements are accepted as a WG document.

Having earlier supported the requirements as a WG document, I would
retract that until the charter is modified, unless you are using
acceptance of the requirements as a gauge for charter rework.

-Vach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:32 AM
> To: pwe3

Stewart

---

From: Arthi Ayyangar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:05:31 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

> What is the view of members of the PWE3 WG?

I support this becoming a WG draft.

Also, while we are having this whole 'solution before requirements'
discussion, just to be clear, I have included the text of Stewart's email
below which states that the MH requirements draft is to become a WG doc.

-------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the responses to the list the WG chairs
agree that there is WG consensus to make:

draft-martini-pwe3-mh-pw-requirements-01.txt

a WG draft.

We would ask the authors to incorporate all agreed changes
to the text and then submit the draft as a WG draft.

There is an active discussion on a number of other issues
but we will work them through the normal consensus process.

Stewart

---------------------------------------------

thanks,
-arthi

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:08:51 -0800 (PST)

Hi Stewart and WG,

This draft should be a WG document.

A few clarifications on the ID:

1. The primary motivation for this draft is "Multi-segment Traffic
Engineered PWs".

2. The Requirements it addresses include all of:
multi-segment PWs, QoS signalign eg. bandwidth reservations, explicit
routing, crankback, Resource/policy admission control, end-to-end backup
MS-PWs, protection support for PWs.

Most of these requirements are covered in
draft-martini-pwe3-mh-pw-requirements-01.txt

3. RSVP-TE for MS TE PWs builds on RSVP-TE, LSP-Hierarchy and
inter-domain RSVP-TE signaling *already* specified in MPLS and CCAMP WGs.

4. The missing piece in RSVP-TE for "MS TE PWs" is PW identification TLV
and some PW parameters such as control word negotiation. Hence the
argument that there is a lot missing, is misleading.

Incase folks have missed it, I have attached the presentation on this from
the last PWE3 meeting.

Thanks,
rahul

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:03:02 +0100

I support that the draft becomes a WG draft.

Best regards and Happy Easter

Italo

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:32
> To: pwe3