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

From: "Shah, Nikhil B (Nikhil)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:39:16 -0500

Agree. I am in support of making this work as WG doc.

- Nikhil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Rahul Aggarwal
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:09 PM
To: Stewart Bryant
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Stewart Bryant wrote:

>
> 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
>