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

From: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:29:10 -0500

Vach, All,
 
> 
> 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.
> 

The new proposed charter actually captured that
mechanisms need to be defined for multi-segment pw and
the current charter captured that requirements need to
be gathered for inter-as pw. I actually preferred the new 
charter includes both requirements and mechanisms (and why not 
work on a simple framework document on mh/s pw) before even 
discussing solutions, etc. 

As I mentioned before the new charter needs to provide further 
clarification on what type of mechanisms that need to be pursued 
in pwe3. 

I do agree that unless we agree on the new charter and what problem
space and mechanisms pwe3 and l2vpn will work on for ms-pw, 
the debate on accepting/rejecting solutions is a bit premature
at this point in time. 

Add to it that judging from the discussion we don't seem to 
agree on what problem(s) the proposal is actually addressing. 
For the discussion I can sense 3 problem spaces being proposed 
by this draft and it is not clear to me which one is really
intended:

-  Problem space (PS) 1: proposes rsvp-te as an alternative 
   to LDP/PW for PW regardless what problem is
   being solved (single-segment, multi-segment, QoS, 
   explicit route, etc). Looks to me the draft-id 
   reflects this problem space (and hence the current
   debate on protocols). And the draft solves all these
   problems. In my view to follow this option the wg needs to
   discuss whether a new protocol for pw is needed
   in general.

-  PS 2: proposes that RSVP-TE is a better proposal 
   than LDP for the WG to pursue in order to address 
   "in a single shot" both QoS/TE and MS-pw problem spaces. 
   In that option the WG will leave these 2 problems to rsvp-te
   solution and will *not* pursue any LDP-based solution for 
   these 2 problem spaces. This option explains (to me at least)
   why we hear some arguments about rsvp-te versus cr-ldp 
   for pw. 

-  PS 3 proposes that the WG works on both LDP and RSVP-TE
   for QoS and multi-segment PW problems only.

It is not clear what problem space is actually intended, and 
it is clear that in fact we don't seem to agree on the problem 
being addressed. 

My suggestion (inline with Vach suggestion) would be to first:

a) refine the new charter with respect to the objective
   and clarifies the problem spaces and the type of 
   mechanisms pwe3 will work on for ms-pw (and QoS if any).
b) identify what other WG will work on based on the
   requirements identified.
c) get the charter accepted and then we can progress
   what appropriate solution needs to be pursued.

Unless we close on that it seems to me the debate on 
progressing at this point in time specific solutions for 
unknown/misunderstood problem(s) will not be fruitful.

Hamid.