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

[JP Vasseur <[e-mail]>]

OK thanks so I'll now post the revised version.

Cheers.

JP.

On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> JP - Sounds good.
> Acee
> JP Vasseur wrote:
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0- 
>> bw TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to  
>> report the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> JP.
>>
>>>
>>> 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" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB
>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf