Subject: [PWE3] LDP & RSVP for MS-PWs

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:04:47 -0700

Folks,
To continue this pseudo-poll on the MS-RSVP v. MS-LDP, I'd like
to formalize things a bit and ask folks to respond to the following
questions (on list, ideally, but directly to the chairs if you'd  
prefer).

If you've already responded to these no need to reply again,
we heard you.

YES or NO answers only please, although you're welcome to
follow-up a YES or NO with comments as to why.

And yes, I realize this is somewhat arbitrary, but we'll see how it
goes..

Thanks!

-danny & Stewart

[snip]

Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?

Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?

Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?

Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Andy Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:41:56 +0800

YES
NO
YES
NO
NO

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:25:10 +0100

in favor of moving RSVP solution forward

if there is a traction for moving MS-LDP (or whatever the name give to 
it) that's fine ... however i would like to know why is there a traction 
for having an "application specific" implementation of RFC3212/3472 when 
this can simply be avoided (and this is not a rhetoric question)

if this was not the case we could have had a common signaling functional 
document and the solution specific document like done at CCAMP with the 
trilogy RFC3471 and RFC3472/RFC3473

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:55:07 +0100

ABSTAIN - it depends on the scope/requirements the draft needs to address

ABSTAIN

YES

NO

A single solution for a single application. No issues with multiple solutions
for different applications.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Danny McPherson
> Sent: martedi 22 novembre 2005 18.05
> To: pwe3
> Subject: [PWE3] LDP & RSVP for MS-PWs
>
>
>
> Folks,

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:11:32 -0500

> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft? 

YES.

NO.

NO.

YES.

YES.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:50:16 -0000

> And yes, I realize this is somewhat arbitrary, but we'll see how it

I hope you get more out of it than it currently appears you will.

> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?

No. There should be no rush to WG adoption.

> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

No.

> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?

No. There should be no rush to WG adoption.

> Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?

No.

> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

I am in favor of a single solution to any problem space. if there are
different applicablities that demand different solutions then that is
fine.

Adrian

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:38:31 -0800

Danny,

> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?

Abstain.

> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

Abstain.

> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?

Yes.

No.

> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

No, as I am against the PWE3 WG deciding whether there should be a
single solution. As I said before, this decision should be done by
the market, not by the WG.

Yakov.

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:39:44 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Danny McPherson wrote:

> questions (on list, ideally, but directly to the chairs if you'd prefer).
>

Abstain

> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

Abstain

Yes.

No.

> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

No.  The market should decide, as it did for RSVP-TE vs. CR-LDP. 
(Let me repeat that we already have multiple solutions for PWs, so 
it's a bit late to ask this question.)

Kireeti.
-------

---

From: "yuichiro wada" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:52 +0900

Hi,

Thanks,
Yuichiro

--
Yuichiro Wada <[email-masked]>
Broadband IP Services Business Division
NTT Communications Corporation
Tel +81-3-6700-8540  Fax +81-3-3506-1311

---

From: Hidet Sugiyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:26:57 +0900

> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?
[Hidet]Abstain.
> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?
[Hidet]Abstain.
> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?
[Hidet]Yes. (Good for large network with TE.)
> Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?
[Hidet]No.
> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?
[Hidet]No.

---

From: Peter Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:59 +0000

ABSTAIN 

ABSTAIN

ABSTAIN

ABSTAIN

YES

Regards,
Peter Willis
Office of BT Group CTO.
BT.

---

From: jason rusmisel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:08:41 -0500

Inline:
Jason Rusmisel

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

ABSTAIN

YES

---

From: "Mustapha Aissaoui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:21:26 -0500

See my response below.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Danny McPherson
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:05 PM
To: pwe3
Subject: [PWE3] LDP & RSVP for MS-PWs

Folks,
To continue this pseudo-poll on the MS-RSVP v. MS-LDP, I'd like to formalize
things a bit and ask folks to respond to the following questions (on list,
ideally, but directly to the chairs if you'd prefer).

If you've already responded to these no need to reply again, we heard you.

YES or NO answers only please, although you're welcome to follow-up a YES or
NO with comments as to why.

And yes, I realize this is somewhat arbitrary, but we'll see how it goes..

Thanks!

-danny & Stewart

[snip]

Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?
Not at this point in time. I still believe the MS-RSVP solution has some
nice properties and merits but I am not convinced that they outweigh the
additional work required to support PWs (support FEC 128 and 129, PW status,
etc.).

Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?
Yes. This does not negate that if it is proven that a RSVP based solution
could address critical shortcomings of the LDP based solution, there is
nothing wrong in considering it as an advanced solution.

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:23 -0800 (PST)

Hi Danny and Stewart,

> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?

No. I am not in favor of TE extensions to LDP.

> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

No. I don't think this or Q4 really matter. If sufficient folks say yes to
Q1 and Q3, there is no reason why both works shouldn't move forward.

Yes.

No.

> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

No. We are at a stage where the requirements and applications of MS-PWs
are still evolving and are incipient. There are two solutions on the table
and if there are signficant number of folks who want to work on one or the
other (yes to Q1 or Q3), the WG should support this work and offer choices
to providers. Its too early for the WG to pick one solution. If needed,
this decision can be made later in the standards process.

rahul

---

From: Ping Pan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:52:33 -0800

YES

NO

> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?

ABSTAIN (up to the carriers)

> Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?

ABSTAIN (up to the carriers)

YES

---

From: David McDysan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:57:47 -0500

Here are my responses.

Dave 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Danny McPherson
> To continue this pseudo-poll on the MS-RSVP v. MS-LDP, I'd 
> like to formalize things a bit and ask folks to respond to 
> the following questions (on list, ideally, but directly to 
> the chairs if you'd prefer).
> 

YES: Because I believe this will result in a standardized solution soonest,
which is essential for at least the access metro/core and the inter-provider
use cases in the MS-PW requirements draft.

> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?

NO: Given past events, it is the best, quickest way to get critical
functions standardized in a timely manner.

> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?

NO: If the clarification from Mark Townsley that CR-LDP type TLVs and
procedures could be used for MS-PW even if they are not being used for
MPLS-TE holds, then the need for MS-RSVP is diminished.

> Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?

NO: In the larger scheme of things, using CCAMP and RSVP-TE, IGP-TE, PCE,
... addressing, routing and signaling for multiple functions still as a
certain attraction to me. I would be interested in reading more in drafts
from advocates of this position. This could change my answer to Q3.

> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?

YES: In general, this is desirable. However, as has been pointed out we
already have multiple solutions for SS-PW. I think that the single solution
needs to have a scope that is broader than PWE3, which would include at
least the CCAMP, MPLS WGs.