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

[Dan Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Yes to this I-D.

Best regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>