RE: Comments on document coming around one more time

["Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALSVC" <wlai@att.com>]

Dave,
  A protection entity for restoration can be pre-planned (without being
pre-established), as stated in the definition of restoration.  A protection
entity can have resources reserved-on-demand, as described in the 1st para
of Section 4.3.  In this sense, the concept of working/protection entity
applies also to restoration and is not restricted to protection switching.
Hence, the defintion of rerouting applies also to restoration.
Wai Sum. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McDysan [mailto:dave.mcdysan@wcom.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:04 PM
To: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALSVC; tewg-dt@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on document coming around one more time


Wai Sum Lai writes:

> Dave,
>   Many thanks for your review and the comments below.  I have incorporated
> most of them, except:
> Section 4.2: Natural ordering is a good suggestion.  Need more time to
>   think about it.

A reasonable request.

Concept of working/protection entities should not be
>   restricted to protection switching.  Let's talk more later.

To be more specific, the current text defines restoration as performing
rerouting, while the definition of rerouting applies only to protection
switching. In other words, the definitions are not internally consistent.
Sorry that I did not have more time to review and comment.

> Section 4.3: Will do in next iteration - need to cover both local and path
>   restoration
> Section 5.2.4: next iteration, in view of Section 4.3

This is fine. We are very interested in high-performance path restoration in
a multi-vendor environment. Some of this text in this draft implies that
this is a fait accompli. I wish that this were so.

Dave