IETF Logo Mail Archive

[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 20:54 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOcr-0002Uu-Sf; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOcq-0002Ue-UC; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:56 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXOcp-00061R-Kt; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:56 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2006 16:54:56 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,291,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="106444498:sNHT55489544"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9AKstH2028978; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:55 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9AKstDM015060; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:54 -0400
Received: from [10.82.224.123] ([10.82.224.123]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:54 -0400
Message-ID: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:53 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
References: <C12AE018.896F0%dward@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C12AE018.896F0%dward@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2006 20:54:54.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[567C5010:01C6ECAE]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2059; t=1160513695; x=1161377695; 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:David=20Ward=20<dward@cisco.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dv8FxVGcUsEpRLhXR761boAs862s=3D; b=QJ1sviq7MVNhCYU5bxpKj4tv/KlTZ8+YKRghSOBTQQYUykKBZd1IN2tmWlha/nsWBCy+RbS7 R5llvhUS3aVwWXTPh4E9ua5xJt684co3y0JncErBWCR+FYp5Nuokecqc;
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: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4
Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, 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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email