The MPLS WG Archive

[Fiffi Hellstrand <fiffi@nortelnetworks.com>]

Hi,

The recovery framework draft talks solely about mpls recovery and should
therefore be kept within the working group. However, It is related to other
work in the sub-ip area that also deals with recovery techniques. IMHO they do
not need to fullfill eachothers requirement or  we else would have a complex
mix of cross dependences. So for this particular draft I find it self
consistent and to be kept within mpls wg (as agreed upon before).

The AD's are talking about traceability between the groups and I'm in favour
of such work. But exactly how it should be performed hasn't been settled yet.
If I missed it pleased let me know the status.

/Fiffi

Loa Andersson wrote:

> 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

--
Fiffi Hellstrand  MSc
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Manager -
Routing Architecture Lab      Nortel Networks
ATI Strategic Protocols       St. Eriksgatan 115A
ESN   : 521-3687              Stockholm Sweden
phone : +46 (0)8-5088-3687
mobile: +46 (0)70-559-3687    e-mail: fiffi@nortelnetworks.com
----------------------------------------------------------------