Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

adrian - see in-line

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As discussed in Montreal, we need to poll for a couple of new WG drafts.
> 
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-04.txt 

> has been updated by the authors to provide further details and 
> clarification.

- ok - 

> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-02.txt

- guess it is v03.txt ? -
 
> has been updated since the version discussed in Montreal.

i am ok in investigating the MP->CP but i have two concerns that imho 
should deserve more specific attention to maintain consistency wrt to 
CP->MP

section 2.2: if control is lost for an LSP (during CP failure) how can it 
be possible transfer that LSP from the CP -> MP ? 

section 4.4: why the document assumes that both MUST be supported ? in 
part. concerning the CP->MP if one does implement current GMPLS signaling 
restart/recovery why shall this be mandated ? in brief, the document shall 
take into account existing mechanisms and prevent overlaps (with existing 
GMPLS mechanisms)

hence, it is strongly suggested to identify conditions when such CP->MP is 
required (and not an alternative to existing CP mechanisms) b/f 
progressing that part
 
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-04.txt 

> has been updated as Zafar says in his previous email.

informational imho - in its current version 

- not sure to understand why the PathErr/Notify can be processed by the 
head-end only (what about segment recovery and stitching case) - why only 
MBB is possible upon reception (pls use E2E recovery/Segment recovery 
capabilities as you address GMPLS networks)

- compared to path-reopt, error description is identical for the TE link 
case which leads to the following point - if errors code/value are the 
same how to distinguish them (assuming that the query procedure described 
in path-reopt is used during the setup of that LSP) ? - comment is more 
for the path-reopt draft than yours but since there is an overlap ... it 
must be addressed in a way or another (note that when fully head-end 
driven operations look similar but there is a major difference role of 
timing and severity of the error code/value) 

- in case shutdown of a protected component link (of a bundle) is 
initiated why can't link protection be used ?
 
> Please send yes or no for these I-Ds.
> 
> Reasons and opinions are also welcomed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian