The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Aug> msg00126



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

iesg comments on the revovery framework

  • From: Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:54:48 +0200
  • CC: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Fiffi Hellstrand <fiffi@nortelnetworks.com>, Vishal Sharma <v.sharma@ieee.org>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1

All,

we've received the comments from the IESG on the
draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk. Since the comments to a certain
extent addresses issues that are
- related to the workings of the sub-ip area
- what and how things should be done within the mpls group
- what is need as input from other the requirment specifying wgs
    to start any work within wgs that do protocol specification
    in the sub-ip area

I've chosen to send the comments to the wg mailing list.  While it
is clear that we often take requirments from e.g. ccamp and te-wg
iyt is not clear that this is the only requirment source.
I've de-personalized the comments somewhat, since it is normally
easier to discuss the issues that way.

Question is if the wg group feels that there always need to that
requirment traceability from te-wg via ccamp to mpls, or whether
there are work that is started because it is within the mpls charter
or comes out of other wgs, e.g. the ppvpn group?

If the latter is the case, does the requirment traceability requirment
apply to this particular draft anyhow?


/Loa



AD wrote:


 > the IESG talked about draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk on the call today
 >
 > two issues came up:


 >
 > (from nn)
 > 2/ how does this document relate to the requirements expressed in
 > draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-01.txt?  in what ways does
 > it not meet requirements?  in what ways does it exceed them,
 > and if any, why?
 >
 > and, the sub-ip area architecture would seem to require a
 > requirements/protocol path from the tewg requirements, through
 > a common control and management plane, and then to the low-
 > level path mechanisms.  i was unable to follow this logical
 > path.  without it, how can one judge this work?
 >
 >
 > AD
 >




-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW             www.utfors.se