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

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Adrian,

> 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?

No, as we are not in the business of predicting the future and therefore
not in the business of limiting future applications of the I-D.

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

In order for me to answer this question I'd like to get a clear
description of the requirements of the Vasseur I-D.

Yakov.