[mpls] working group last call fordraft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps

> Hi Lou,
> 
> Thanks for your comments - in line,

> JP, (co-authors),
> 
>          I have some minor questions and some feedback on the
> draft.  See below.
> 
> 
> 
>> >    TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth that are configured and
>> >    provisioned through a management system are not included in the count
>> >    that is reported.
> 
> Two questions WRT the above:
> - Why are such LSPs excluded from reporting?
> - How is the above accomplished for signalled LSPs?
> JP> This should actually read " Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and
>    provisioned through a management system are not included in the count
>    that is reported." - Thanks.

> section 3.1:
>> >    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>> >    appear at most once within [...]
> and section 3.2:
>> >    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>> >    appear at most once within [...]
> 
> While your intent is pretty clear, the phrasing is a bit awkward and
> subject to misinterpretation (i.e., what does it mean for an
> "OPTIONAL" element to "MUST" appear ).  How about rephrasing along
> the lines of (change marked in asterisks):
> 
> "The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
> ***NOT appear more than*** once within [...]"
> 
> JP> Makes a lot of sense. Changed.
> 
> 
>> >4.  Elements of procedure
>> >
>> >    An implementation MAY decide to implement a dual-thresholds mechanism
>> >    based on the number of unconstrained TE LSPs to govern the
>> >    origination of updated OSPF LSA or ISIS LSP.  [...]
> 
> Should either define or point a reference that defines "a
> dual-thresholds mechanism".
> 
> JP> Yes, we've got two options here. (1) Mimic the RFC3209 approach and just
> do not say anything. Isn't it so obvious that implementers will know this
> anyway or (2) start to explain possible approach to avoid too frequent
> flooding. I favor (1). Agree ?
>> >5.  IANA Considerations
>> >
>> >    IANA will assign a new code point for the newly defined IS-IS Number
>> >    of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV carried within the TLV 22 (suggested
>> >    value =18).
>> >
>> >    IANA will assign a new code point for the newly defined OSPF Number
>> >    of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV carried within the Link TLV (Type 2)
>> >    of the Traffic Engineering LSA (suggested value=18).
> 
> Both suggested values are already assigned.
> JP> Yes thanks, we were waiting for the last minute to update the proposed
> values (next available slot is 23).
> Thanks.
> JP.
> That's it!
> Lou
> 


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls