High level comment on draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt,

To: <xuhuiying@huawei.com>, <danli@huawei.com>

Subject: High level comment on draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-00.txt,

From: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:39:32 -0400

Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 59 extraneous bytes; sig from cisco.com verified; );

Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>

Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3214; t=1152499174; x=1153363174; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=22Zafar=20Ali=20\(zali\)=22=20<zali@cisco.com> |Subject:High=20level=20comment=20on=20draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status -00.txt,=20 |To:<xuhuiying@huawei.com>,=20<danli@huawei.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DkHMWlOTnabTI0kLwNQTVzrwnX7I=3D; b=0SjUQ3E9wHzAlEZx2L24rG//WzGj9e+UbOvHWi5SbGTqMnLqS2PkJ3iJAvmk8zL2ywumJ+YC ferzeoJZgigdo7hjD/gI/YIVG/gWjYEWbbEFXQrFBsMS5da6iU+oa5KR;

Dear Authors,

RSVP refreshes do this job, so I am not sure motivation for this draft/ LMP extensions.

n.b. The draft state, "Although such a situation can be resolved through the use of the Acceptable Label Set object in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], such a procedure is inefficient since it may require an additional signaling exchange for each LSP that is set up", so I assume that RSVP signaling is present (Although I did not understand the quoted statement from the ID). Even if RSVP is not present, e.g., optical core is completely controlled by a management entity, I would argue introduce presence of LMP.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar