Re: accepting draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt as a CCAMP WG document

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Yakov,

> > Could you explain why we would want to adopt
> > draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt (note that your draft is at revision 
> > 03)
> > rather than draft-vasseur-ccamp-ce-ce-te-02.txt
>
> Are you proposing to adopt draft-vasseur-ccamp-ce-ce-te-02.txt
> as a CCAMP WG document ? (simple "yes/no" would suffice).

I ain't proposing nothin'

> For one thing, draft-vasseur-ccamp-ce-ce-te-02.txt is unimplementable,
> as (quoting from the draft) "The format of the BGP TE attribute will
> be defined in a further revision of this document." In contrast,
> draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt does define the format of the
> BGP TE attribute, and is sufficient for implementing the attribute.

That is probably a good reason to start with.

> > The scope of your draft seems to be very open-ended which is quite 
> > worrying.
> > Perhaps you could help by telling us what the application space is.
>
> As you said below, *an* application of this draft is L1VPN.

Two questions:

1. Would you be happy if your I-D contained a statement that limit its 
applicability to L1VPNs?

2. Could you conceive of using your I-D to meet the requirements of the 
Vasseur I-D?

Thanks,
Adrian