Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 7709
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Why isn't the WG working to solve the requirements in this document? I ask because in general I think that requirement documents are good to motivate work and guide solutions, but their useful lifetime is not beyond that. The solution is then what should be published. I also ask because according to the March 2014 CCAMP Meeting Notes one of the authors said: “we have possible solutions...but before coming with solutions we want an agreement on requirements", but I don't see any work that seems to be related, nor any other document referring to it. Having said that, given that the document got all the way here, I won't stand in the way of publication.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Dynamic circuit and virtual circuit switching intrinsically provide guaranteed
bandwidth, guaranteed low-latency and jitter, and faster
restoration,
By virtual circuit switching you mean gmpls signaled time or frequency domain allocation. Not any other mpls meaning of virtual circuit switching.
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection