Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions (draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06.txt)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Tue, 04 November 2014 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B251A896F for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:31:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CJPOjkKYqWn for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B02A1A8A14 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:31:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLG95176; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:31:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:31:14 +0000
Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.112]) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 23:31:05 +0800
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions (draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHP1DIEHMSGequlDk2aRIP+ttVfipwM3iIggCXXyQCAHZRTAIAAkvuQ
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:31:04 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8661273B@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <D041E4D5.3539%acee@cisco.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865FACE0@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <D0658BA1.567F%acee@cisco.com> <9cf84f74ab614b9e81f1ca4107b31be9@BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <9cf84f74ab614b9e81f1ca4107b31be9@BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.153.76]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/PB5fcRnos-jLrbsg-YXCiVLWZd8
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions (draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06.txt)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:31:56 -0000

Hi John, 

Snip to the only open point..

(snip)

> > >(2) A reference to PCE should also be added along with the mention
> of
> > >ALTO server. See
> > >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/
> > >In fact the steps mentioned for the ingress in section 3 are
> > >applicable for a stateful PCE as well.
> 
> [JD]  Why?
>
I feel just the following minor change should be fine in the introduction section.  

OLD:
   The data distributed by OSPF TE Metric Extensions is meant to be used
   as part of the operation of the routing protocol (e.g. by replacing
   cost with latency or considering bandwidth as well as cost), by
   enhancing CSPF, or for other uses such as supplementing the data used
   by an Alto server [Alto]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed
   by OSPF TE Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and
   fail back data paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209].[
   Draft-ietf-mpls-te-express-path] describes some methods for using
   this information to compute Label Switched Paths (LSPs) at the LSP
   ingress.
NEW:
   The data distributed by OSPF TE Metric Extensions is meant to be used
   as part of the operation of the routing protocol (e.g. by replacing
   cost with latency or considering bandwidth as well as cost), by
   enhancing CSPF, or for other uses such as supplementing the data used
   by a PCE [RFC4655] or an Alto server [Alto]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed
   by OSPF TE Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and
   fail back data paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209].[
   Draft-ietf-mpls-te-express-path] and [draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware] 
   describes some methods for using
   this information to compute Label Switched Paths (LSPs) at the LSP
   ingress and PCE respectively.  

This would let the reader know that PCE can also use this information along with the Ingress/ALTO server. 
 
(snip)

Regards,
Dhruv