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

Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 10 October 2006 21:03 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOl2-0006Y2-CN; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:24 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOl0-0006Xq-Ok; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:22 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOkz-00070W-Ff; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:22 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2006 14:03:21 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,291,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="45564425:sNHT75748880"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9AL3LPF000622; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:21 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9AL3LYJ008944; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:20 -0400
Received: from [10.82.224.123] ([10.82.224.123]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:20 -0400
Message-ID: <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:19 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
References: <C12AE018.896F0%dward@cisco.com> <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2006 21:03:20.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[8417C4E0:01C6ECAF]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2379; t=1160514201; x=1161378201; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-numbe r-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |To:Jean=20Philippe=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dv8FxVGcUsEpRLhXR761boAs862s=3D; b=TUgN47ymFlXgFDkDPsX1S+iKcFCAh4v20rW/pWiBWOQ348OqpV7YkPJD0YG8fPIqC+8t38vq wm1rWxcnTIpq4J+35c7S0IUOaRO4afS6AtQwjKQNb1gzj5zT2oZd+TPj;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8
Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Subject: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

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)

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.
>   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.
>   3. Do  you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to indicate no 
> unconstrained
>       LSPs are to traverse a given link.
>   4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and "ISIS 
> LSP"
>       with "ISIS LSPs".
>
> 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