RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds

["Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>]

Hi Dimitri, 

Please see my reply inline. 

Thanks for your support for Graceful Shutdown ID. 

Regards.. Zafar  

<snip> 

>  
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-grace
> ful-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)
> 

This is a good point and we can address these scenarios in the next
version of the ID. 

> - 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 ... 

In that case I will let authors of the path-reopt draft to reply/
comment on this point. 

> 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 ?
> 

I think this also comes under the category of scenario you mentioned
above. We can address it and share the ID with you for further comments,
before publishing. 
 
> > Please send yes or no for these I-Ds.
> > 
> > Reasons and opinions are also welcomed.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian 
>