[OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]

Hi JP,
Looks good. See one question below.

JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi Acee,
>
> Thanks for your comments -
>
> As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post 
> the updated ID.
>
> see in line,
>
> On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>> JP,
>>
>> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can
>> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative
>> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt)
>>
>
> OK. Text added:
>
> OLD:
>
>    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>    appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
>    carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630]. If
>    a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is
>    present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of
>    the sub-TLV.
>
>
> NEW:
>
>    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>    appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
>    carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in 
> [RFC3630]
>    or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in 
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic.
>    If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is
>    present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of
>    the sub-TLV.
>
> see below
>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> Acee Lindem wrote:
>>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments on it
>>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following
>>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP):
>>>
>>>   1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short
>>>       cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why you've 
>>> defined
>>>       NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP Count 
>>> sub-TLV?
>>>       Or at least come up with a better short name :^),  e.g. 
>>> BW-0-LSP-CNT.
>
> Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-)
>
> Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV.
>
>>>   2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the 
>>> sub-TLV type? I checked
>>>       IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a document 
>>> though.
>
> As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote the 
> ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm not 
> quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA.
>
>>>   3. Do  you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to indicate 
>>> no unconstrained
>>>       LSPs are to traverse a given link.
>
> Let's just use the value 0.
Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity between 
designating there
are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs are allowed
to traverse this linke?

Thanks,
Acee

>
>>>   4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and 
>>> "ISIS LSP"
>>>       with "ISIS LSPs".
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers.
>
> JP.
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>              David Ward wrote:
>>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for other WG 
>>>> that
>>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of last 
>>>> call from
>>>> the IGPs?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -DWard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s
>>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that
>>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loa and George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on 
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt
>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200
>>>>> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB
>>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Working Group,
>>>>>
>>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or
>>>>> the working group chairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Loa and George
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf