Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 27 February 2007 14:41 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HM3Vu-0002Je-6V for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:41:10 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HM3Vr-0006nL-Nx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:41:10 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HM3KU-000LD7-MK for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:29:22 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.7
Received: from [212.23.3.140] (helo=pythagoras.zen.co.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1HM3KR-000LCq-JJ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:29:21 +0000
Received: from [88.96.235.142] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by pythagoras.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HM3KQ-00050c-8Y for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:29:18 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([217.158.132.136] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:29:15 +0000
Message-ID: <04ec01c75a7b$9db76e70$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>, Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@nuovasystems.com>
References: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DB5BC3F@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Subject: Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:50:41 -0000
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: 27 Feb 2007 14:29:17.0660 (UTC) FILETIME=[A99F11C0:01C75A7B]
X-Originating-Pythagoras-IP: [88.96.235.142]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c
Hi Deborah, Thanks for your review. I have updated the draft as follows... > ======= > Boilerplate > Need the new boilerplate Looks like a couple of non-mandatory boilerplate changes flagged by idnits. I have made the updates. > ======= > Nits: may want to check, a couple of nits on weird spacings and line > lengths No problems in the new revision. Looks like maybe some idnits bugs for the previous revision. > ======= > Section 1 > Update for recent work, e.g. [INTER-DOMAIN-FRAMEWORK] is RFC4726, > RFC4726 applies for MPLS-TE and GMPLS, Thanks. Yes. > requirements for GMPLS are in draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-05.txt. Well, I'll leave that for now as it is not specific to this work. > ======= > Section 2 > text has "supported by one of three options" > May want to also mention 4726's hybrid support, probably a small note > is all that's needed, e.g. "(or hybrid)". Yes. Text added to section 2. > Also, it would be useful to > mention something on consideration for 4726's backward compatibility, > either here or in a later section. Yup. New section 7 added to cover backward compatibilty. > ======= > Section 3 > item 2 incomplete sentence, a suggestion: > s/adhered to./adhered./ I'll leave that sort of thing to the RFC Editor to worry about. > also in item 2 > s/message an error code/message with error code/ Yes > item 3 > s/in the Section 3/in Section 3/ Yes. > item 4 > s/option is supplied/option is specified/ Yes > ======= > Section 3.2 > s/information that report/information that reports/ Yes > ======= > Section 5.1.2 > s/(filed link)/(failed link)/ Yes. (A favorite typo of mine!) > ======= > Section 5.1.3 > s/domian/domain/ Yes > ======= > Section 6 > s/preferable/more preferred/ Yes > s/in order search/in order to search/ Yes > ======= > Section 7 > s/:-/:/ Yes > the text says "disallow or ignore hops", I don't think its "ignore"? I think it is ignore. The policy is that a node outside the domain cannot specify the path of the LSP inside the domain. The domain border LSR can make implement this policy in one of two ways: - It can reject the Path message - It can ignore the hops in the ERO that lie within the domain I have added this clarification. > ====== > [LOOSE-REOPT] is now [RFC4736], and Informational, did you want to > reference as a Normative Reference? Good catch! > Check and update others. Checked > ====== > Section 11 > JP's email address is up-to-date? JP is ambidextrous. He can receive emails with both hands at the same time. :-) Cheers, Adrian
- Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsv… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel