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

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:25:11 -0700

Deborah and Adrian,

Almost 4 weeks ago Don, Hamid, and myself asked to accept
draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute as a CCAMP WG document (see below).
Please let us know the status of our request.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:06:38 -0700
From:    Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To:      "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>,
	 "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
cc:      "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>, "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.
	  com>,
	 [email-masked]
Subject: accepting draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt as a CCAMP WG document

Deborah and Adrian,

On behalf of the authors of draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt we
would like to propose to accept this draft as a CCAMP WG document.
This draft went through IDR review and we incorporated the comments
in the latest version.

Yakov.

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:18:22 +0100

Yakov,

Currently the level of discussion on the list does not warrant this being 
polled for adoption.

Further, I am concerned that the failure to limit the applicability of the 
draft is a direct proposal to support flooding of TE information from one AS 
to another. Whether this would result in stressing BGP or attempting TE 
aggregation, I don't know, but it is my understanding that such an 
application would be contrary to decisions already taken by the CCAMP 
working group about how to perform inter-domain TE, and would be a severe 
risk to the stability of the Internet.

I propose that we put this topic on the CCAMP agenda for Vancouver to see 
whether we can scope the problem:
- Are we limiting ourselves to the distribution of CE-PE TE information?
- What about PE-PE TE information?
- Do we need to distribute the information outside the AS?

You said in an earlier email that you do not want to constrain the future. 
That is a noble statement, but you probably also want to protect the 
Internet against abuse of protocol extensions that you design. So we just 
need to get the scoping right.

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yakov Rekhter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>; "Don Fedyk" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: accepting draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt as a CCAMP WG 
document