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

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

Hi Don,
        in line.

Regards



"Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>@ops.ietf.org on 24/08/2006 16.48.48

Sent by:    owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org


To:    "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>, "Diego Caviglia"
       <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
cc:    <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>

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

Lou and Diego, all

Two points.

If we were to ask could you live without the CP->MP feature what
response would we get versus asking if CP->MP is a soft requirement.
[dc] I think that the poll request from Adrian was trying to solve this
point.

The other point that baffles me is there is not one "standard" MP that
I'm aware of so really we are talking many variations of MP to a
standard CP. So how do you define a CP to variations of MPs? The
document currently oversimplifies this aspect IMHO.
[dc] This is not clear to me.  Could you please clarify?

Thanks,
Don

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Diego,
>          In my experience in talking about this feature with
> carriers is that some (but not all) will require such
> symmetric behavior.  I think the other rational for this
> feature are irrelevant.  Again, the sole reason I've seen for
> this requirement is that to deploy MP->CP some will require
> that there be support for CP->MP.
>
> I therefore think the definition of CP->MP *is* required.
> There are multiple options for meeting this requirement, but
> the solution must provide the "fallback" capability for
> services existing at the time of the initial MP->CP
> transition and those created after the transition.
>
> I think a SHOULD level requirement is sufficient for this
> capability, but I'd be interested if those representing
> carries on the list differ.
>
> Lou
>
> At 03:09 AM 8/24/2006, Diego Caviglia wrote:
>
>
> >In my mind the CP->MP feature can be useful for mainly two purposes:
> >1)    symmetricity with the companion feature (MP->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.
> >
> >[...]
> >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
>
>
>