Re: [Isis-wg] CCAMP LC:draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt

Hi Les,

Thanks for your useful comments!

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:14 PM
To: "David Ward" <dward@cisco.com>om>; "isis mailing list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>rg>;
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>; "ALABS Brungard Deborah A"
<dbrungard@att.com>om>; "Mach Chen" <mach@huawei.com>
Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>et>; "Christian Hopps"
<chopps@rawdofmt.org>
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] CCAMP
LC:draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt

> Primarily editorial comments.
>
> Comment #1:
> Section 2.1 has a number of references to "OSPF" which I presume should
> be "IS-IS".

Good catch!

These will be updated in the next revision!

>
> Comment #2:
> Section 3.1 - it would be good if there was a reference to
> draft-ietf-isis-genapp-01.txt flooding procedures so that correct
> leaking of the TLVs is specified. Note that Section 4 of the genapp
> draft is intended to be the authoritative text on flooding issues of
> this type and should be referenced rather than repeated so as to avoid
> any appearance of conflict.

OK

>
> Comment #3:
> Section 3.3
> Because sub-TLVs defined for TLV 22 can be advertised in the new
> Inter-AS Reachability TLV, the new sub-TLVs defined here cannot conflict
> with existing and/or future sub-TLV definitions for TLV 22. Therefore
> the new sub-TLVs MUST be defined from a sub-TLV registry which is shared
> by these two TLVs. This needs to be clearly stated here.

Yes.

>It also needs
> to be clearly stated that these sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT appear in TLV 22 (or
> TLV 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 22(or 222). This must also be
> reflected in the IANA registry.

The three new sub-TLVs defined in this document will definitely not appear 
in the TLV 22(or 222), but I am not sure whether there will be other future 
sub-TLVs which may be the common attribute of intra-area and inter-AS TE 
links.

So, it seems that just state that the three new sub-TLVs defined in this 
document SHOULD NOT appear in the TLV 22( or 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 
22(or 222) will be more reasonable. How you think that?

>
>   Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
>> Of David Ward
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:44 AM
>> To: isis mailing list; Adrian Farrel; ALABS Brungard Deborah A; Mach
> Chen
>> Cc: Ross Callon; Christian Hopps
>> Subject: [Isis-wg] CCAMP
> LC:draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-
>> 02.txt
>>
>> All -
>>
>> The CCAMP WG would like any last call comments from the ISIS WG on:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-
>> extension-02.txt
>>
>> This last call will timeout July 30, 2008. Please cc this email with
> your
>> comments.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -DWard, CHopps
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg