Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <default@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 04 June 2007 23:16 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvLnC-0005mu-Pr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:16:54 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvLnB-0001R0-Vf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:16:54 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HvLew-0007F2-N6 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:22 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.8
Received: from [212.23.8.67] (helo=fizeau.zen.co.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <default@olddog.co.uk>) id 1HvLek-0007DG-EZ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:16 +0000
Received: from [212.23.3.142] (helo=rutherford.zen.co.uk) by fizeau.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HvLei-0005CT-1a for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:09 +0000
Received: from [88.96.235.142] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HvLeg-0008UL-KS for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:06 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([221.17.113.241] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:08:05 +0100
Message-ID: <019101c7a6fd$33776d70$1601fe0a@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <default@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <014101c78b38$5256fb10$61fadf0a@your029b8cecfe>
Subject: Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:07:48 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2007 23:08:05.0918 (UTC) FILETIME=[35940BE0:01C7A6FD]
X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [88.96.235.142]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6
Well, I wouldn't say we were overwhelmed with responses, but all that we saw were positive (although there is a technical point from Jean-Louis to be addresses). The chairs believe that this I-D is a useful, if small, building block for inter-AS TE so we will make it a WG draft. Authors, please resubmit your I-D as draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-00.txt. Please make no changes except: - file name - dates - anything needed to pass through idnits Can you get this done before he cut-offs for Chicago? Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:00 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. > > > > > > >
- Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… JP Vasseur
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Dan Li
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Peng He
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Greg Bernstein
- RE: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Lucy Yong
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Zhang Renhai
- RE: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Young Lee
- RE: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Dean Cheng (dcheng)
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-o… Mach Chen