Re: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)

["Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>]

Dimitri,
         it depends if you use the parachute before the plane explode :-))

More seriously do you still have problems with the procedure if we move it
to a should/shall/may state?  I think that this would be enough for who
think is a good feture and wants to implement it and do not 'force' anyone
that disagree to implement it.

Regards

Diego



Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be on 24/08/2006 10.18.28

To:    "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
cc:    ccamp@ops.ietf.org, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org

Subject:    Re: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)

diego -

using your metaphore - if the plane explodes/crashes you can have the
nicer parachute it won't be of great help - meaning it is clear that is
not this process/parachute that is going to increase confidence in CP if
the problem is more fundamental and in part. not technical
(confidence/trust/etc.)

ps: operations are NOT symmetric (if you mean reflective since CP =/=
distributed MP)





"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
24/08/2006 09:09

        To:     ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        cc:
        Subject:        CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)



In my mind the CP->MP feature can be useful for mainly two purposes:
1)    symmetricity with the companion feature (MP->CP)
2)    a sort of "parachute" in case something went wrong with the CP (Igor
made an example on this but another one could a foreseen problem with the
      signalling network, or may be the CP is not running well and its
restoration time are not in line with the expectation, or there is a merge
of    two different networks organizations and the resulting one is not
going to use -may be only at initial stage of merging process- the CP,
...)

We (the authors of the ID) agreed with Dimitri that CP->MP is not a must
and I have no problem to move it to should/shall/may state.

Is this in the scope of CCAMP? I think it is because is CP related and
imho
having such parachute can increase the confidence of carriers in CP.  I
mean I prefer to take a plane if I know I have a parachute on board.

However the focus of the ID is on MP->CP handover and if the community is
strongly against of CP->MP even in the form of a should/shall/may
requirement we can strip this out.

Regards

Diego