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

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.

>>   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