Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt

[Greg Bernstein <[e-mail]>]

Yes. Very much in line with current approaches and preserves scalability.

Greg B.

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Prague we discussed this draft and the general opinion seemed to be 
> that this is a useful extension, but that some clarifications needed 
> to be added to the I-D. This new revision appears to address all of 
> the concerns as below.
>
> Therefore given the interest in Prague and the relevance of this I-D 
> to our inter-domain TE charter actions, we are polling the WG for 
> adoption of this I-D as a CCAMP draft.
>
> Opinions please.
>
> Thanks
> Adrian and Deborah
>
> ====
> Overlap with L1VPN autodiscovery
>
>    A question was raised as to whether there was an overlap
>    with the L1VPN autodiscovery work used to distribute
>    membership information (draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery)
>
>    It appears that the mechanisms and purposes are different.
>
>    The authors have added text to clarify that there is no overlap.
>
> Language change for "OSPF" becomes "OSPF-TE"
>
>    Concern was raised that the I-D talked about "OSPF" but the
>    function is "OSPF-TE".
>
>    The authors have updated the I-D accordingly.
>
> Include reference to OSPFv3 as well
>
>    A request was made to include OSPFv3.
>
>    The authors have added text to explain that the same extensions
>    apply to OSPF v2 and OSPF v3 TE extensions.
>
> Make it *incredibly* clear that TE distribution between ASes is
> not in scope.
>
>    Although the I-D had plenty of this material, the authors have
>    beefed it up further by including the list of things that they are
>    not doing from their Prague slides.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]