[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: spc connections
From: John Drake [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon; 'Kireeti Kompella'
Subject: RE: spc connections
> 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.
JD: Do you think that if you continue saying this that it will somehow
LYO: Yes, I believe that discussing issues on the mailing list may actually
lead to some better understanding and common agreement :o)
BTW, I did not mean to imply that ALL other people on the list agreed,
just that there were multiple (at least 4-5) views in support of this.
> 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).
JD: What makes you think that there are not SPC implementations that
LYO: There may be SPC implementations, but 3473 does not itself
define how to convey an SPC label.
> It seems like people are bound and determined to go their own
> way on this, although I'm not sure why.
JD: I'm assuming that you're referring to youself?
LYO: Actually, I apologize for that last remark, I was just concerned
seeing people writing new procedures when we hadn't reached some kind
of consensus on the list.