Subject: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:01:14 -0400

Authors/WG,
    I'm a bit uncomfortable with the document's use of FEC in the
context if RSVP-TE.  RFC3209's usage of FEC is very loose and rfc4379
only gives an indirect definition in one context.  I think that either
the draft should avoid the term or it should point to a to be written
formal definition of the term in the context of RSVP-TE (including in
its GMPLS form).

Thoughts?

Lou (with any / all hats)

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:49:01 +0000

Lou- 

How about we change the terminology to use RSVP-TE "LSP identifier" or
"tunnel identifier", depending on the context, instead?

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 8:01 PM
To: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: TEAS WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Teas] use of the FEC term in draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

>_______________________________________________
>Teas mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:23:06 +0200

Lou,

On 2015-04-17 02:01, Lou Berger wrote:
> context if RSVP-TE.
Yes, I share that concern, the FEC terminology originated in LDP
context, but have since developed developed.

> RFC3209's usage of FEC is very loose and rfc4379

I've been looking for a while for that defintion, and as far as I can
there is no RSVP-TE message or object that actually carry a FEC. It has
been said the the FEC definition is "implicit", but I don't think that
is a solution, rather it is part of the problem.

I think that "avoid" would be easiest, but if the authors go for
defining a FEC in RSVP-TE context, I think that the consensus call for
such a definiton need to involve teas and mpls, but I think ccamp and 
pce should also be notified for the such a consesus call.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:32:32 +0200

Zafar,

> "tunnel identifier", depending on the context, instead?

I guess this is "avoiding" - which is fine with me.

It bothers me a (little) bit that "LSP-id" or "tunnel-id" should be 
equivalent with "FEC". FEC is used to decide what goes on (the same)
LSP, while the id's are identifiers for the LSP or the tunnel.

/Loa

--

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:44:17 -0400

Hi Zafar,

> "tunnel identifier", depending on the context, instead?

I think any wording that unambiguously reflects your / the authors' / wg's 
intent is just fine.

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:48:38 -0400

Hi Loa,

On April 17, 2015 4:23:52 AM Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think that "avoid" would be easiest,

This seems to be what Zafar was proposing.

> but if the authors go for

I completely agree. I also think this must be in its own document.

Lou