[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: spc connections
I'll be happy to provide feedback any time.
<ccamp chair hat on>
Being consistent with G.7713.2 isn't at the top of my list until the
many issues with 7713.2 are cleared up. Being consistent with 3473 is
at the very top of my list. Reusing objects defined in 3473 (which is
an IETF Standards Track document), and more fully explaining their
processing where needed is exactly what CCAMP should be doing.
I understand that you have many aspects to weigh, and 7713.2 is
only one of them. However, the SPC Label procedure is one where
there have been no technical issues, and it has been implemented
and tested. Other people on the list have concluded that there
is a reasonable case for separating this from the ERO, and it is
not in fact supported by the current procedures in 3473. I'm
not sure, therefore, why this would create an inconsistency with 3473
(I guess there is a case where the ERO contains the terminating
endpoint node ID and an explicit label, but if the connection is
SPC the procedures are not defined).
It seems like people are bound and determined to go their own
way on this, although I'm not sure why.