RE: Closing the GELS Mailing List

["PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>]

adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri; Zafar Ali (zali); Attila Takacs 
> (IJ/ETH); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels
> Cc: Ross Callon
> Subject: Re: Closing the GELS Mailing List
> 
> I think this thread is a representation in miniature of the issues 
> involved...
> 
> - All the emails in this thread have been copied to both mailing lists
> - All the participants in the thread are subscribed to both 
> mailing lists
> 
> No, it doesn't cost to have both lists active.
> No, it doesn't cost to have all of the threads on CCAMP.
> 
> Please note that we should not discuss the data plane. If you don't 
> understand (or don't like, or don't want to use) the data 
> plane you should 
> have your discussions in private or at the IEEE.
> 
> Dimitri said...
> 
> >> - Label allocation and swapping rules
> > is that not a forwarding component discussion ?
> 
> It is certainly informed by the forwarding component (i.e. 
> the definition of 
> the data plane), but the rules we need to define are the 
> rules for the 
> control plane. I.e. (and for example, only) if the forwarding 
> plane defines 
> that the label allocated on the upstream interface must be 
> numerically one 
> greater than the label allocated on the downstream interface, 
> this rule must 
> be referenced in the control plane specification. This is 
> important since it 
> is a constraint placed on the normal per-interface operation 
> of GMPLS. That 
> makes it CCAMP work.
> 
> > beside the fact that there is an assumption on what
> > label means and how it is represented in data plane
> 
> This is also something we would expect to describe within 
> CCAMP although 
> "what is a label" would come to us from the data plane specification.

do i interpreet correctly your statement that if the specification that
CCAMP is going to receive from IEEE does not speak about "label" and its
encoding there will be no place to discuss any "label processing" and
"label distribution" protocol in IETF - being domain-wide or link-local
-

in that case, isn't the .1Q specification outside scope of this effort
since not referring - as of today at least - to any "label" semantic as
part of the Ethernet frame header information field ?

thanks,
-d.


> Thanks,
> Adrian 
> 
> 
>