Lou
what i am concerned with: is that the doc extends applicability of GMPLS
to Ethernet by excluding GMPLS for Ethernet per RFC 3945 ? does that
make sense ?
what's needed instead of hiding behind terms is to state GMPLS for Y,
where Y includes the set of Ethernet-based techno's under development at
places as indicated in the doc itself. instead of inducing by a title
such as "GMPLS for Ethernet" that this doc supersedes any previous work
in that
space.
-d.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 PM
> To: Don Fedyk
> Cc: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed WG Draft - draft-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt
>
> Don,
> I agree 100%. Furthermore there is no statement in the
> draft that 3945 doesn't apply, in fact it explicitly says just the
> opposite. The reason for the statement in question is simply as you
> say, and to ensure full ETH-LSP definition and interoperable
> operation a new switching type/capability is required.
>
> It's really not such a bid deal or major change.
>
> Lou
>
> At 04:34 PM 1/22/2008, Don Fedyk wrote:
> >Hi Dimitri
> >
> >The text you quote was put in the architecture/ framework, not to
> >exclude L2 Switch Capable (L2SC) but to prevent redefining
> L2SC, which
> >has been there for many years and may be in use.
> >
> >Perhaps the working needs to be adjusted but I don't think
> it is a major
> >issue.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Don
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:16 PM
> > > To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Proposed WG Draft - draft-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > > We received a couple of comments in the meeting, we would
> > > > appreciate additional feedback on the list.
> > >
> > > The document states:
> > >
> > > "The L2SC Interface Switching Capabilities MUST NOT be used
> > > to represent
> > > interfaces capable of supporting Eth-LSPs. Interface Switching
> > > Capability specific TE information may be defined as
> needed to support
> > > the requirements of a specific Ethernet Switching Service Type."
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > "It is expected that there will be no case where an
> Eth-LSP will be
> > > signaled, or an Eth-LSP supporting interface will be
> > > represented, using
> > > the L2SC switching type/capability. A new switching
> type/capability is
> > > required to avoid any potential current usage of the L2SC
> switching
> > > type/capability in support of Ethernet."
> > >
> > > This is explicit statement that GMPLS per RFC 3945 is not
> applicable.
> > > So, it is much more than just an additional codepoint, as
> the control
> > > plane behaviour is to be defined for this codepoint. So, it
> > > is the open
> > > door for a new control plane behaviour.
> > >
> > > so, let's have a more basic questioning before jumping
> into the single
> > > alternative resulting from this doc.:
> > >
> > > - either it is GMPLS for Ethernet architecture and then
> what exist in
> > > current RFCs should be applicable (because i do not see
> any rationale
> > > for L2SC def. departure for Ethernet frame processing);
> > >
> > > - or not it is X for Y architecture, where X is an IP
> control protocol
> > > based some potentially on some existing GMPLS blocks and Y is not
> > > compatible with the existing definition of Eth frame processing.
> > >
> > > In the latter case, i do not know how this WG can deal
> with such case
> > > (from the control plane perspective).
> > >
> > > -d.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD,
> > > > DEBORAH A, ATTLABS
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:28 PM
> > > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Proposed WG Draft - draft-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt
> > > >
> > > > CCAMP,
> > > >
> > > > The DT proposed in their meeting presentation for their
> > > > architecture and framework document to be accepted as a
> WG draft:
> > > >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt
> > > >
> > > > We received a couple of comments in the meeting, we would
> > > > appreciate additional feedback on the list. Please express
> > > > your support (or otherwise) for this I-D to become a WG draft.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Deborah
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>