Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

["Manral, Vishwas" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rohit,

I was part of the "others" that Don mentioned in his other mail.

Jeff P. correct me(I may have interpreted it wrongly), but I think we chose
the TLV approach in ISIS as we could have probs because of "small SNMP
buffer size and the lack of a defined way to fragment payload". In short an
SNMP agent may not be able to fulfill the request for an LSP of large
size(255 bytes??). In OSPF we anyway send the entire LSA as OCTET string.

If we are not interpreting the TLV's, we could as well send the entire LSA
itself as OCTET string. An OSPF-v2 TE LSA by the way would contain just one
top-level TLV anyway. We could have a seperate table for TE LSA's though in
this case.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Dube [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:54 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal


Hi Venkata,

Ofcourse the item is being considered - we are discussing it here
right! That said, it is in the working groups interest to (a) keep
the focus on a manageable set of issues and (b) take operational
requirements into account before expanding the goals.

Don's approach is reasonable too in this regard (specify a mechanism
to extract the TLVs and Acee and I did discuss this as well) but again,
I would prefer the application that interprets the TLVs (here TE) to
specify the MIB.

Best regards,
--rohit.

PS: The TEWG lists atleast one MIB on its web page
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
    so I don't believe it to be inconceivable for the TEWG (or some other)
    to specify another for the TED.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:14 -0500 "Naidu, Venkata" writes:
=>Rohit,
=>
=>-> Acee and I discussed this. I would agree with you. Any OSPF-TE mib is
=>-> likely to be equally relevant to ISIS. I would prefer to not
=>-> get into specifying this here - if at all, the TEWG can specify
=>-> (perhaps they do already) the contents of the TED to be extracted
=>-> into a MIB.
=>
=> Please give consideration - after all are we discussing OSPF WG charter.
=> Please talk to TEWG chairs and discuss all the possibilities.
=>
=> OSPF-TE is given to OSPF-WG, but OSPF diff extensions (as far as
=> I know, Francois is pretty confident with the recent LOM/BC
=> related IGPs update). So, coordinate with TEWG chairs, if
=> they don't have any agenda related to OSPF-TE MIB and/or OSPF-Diff-TE
=> MIBs in their charter, then discuss which is the better WG to have
=> such drafts. May be single draft will suffice for all the OSPF TE
=> related MIBs (OSPF-TE, OSPF-Diff-TE, OSPF-GMPLS, OSPF-FA LSPs etc).
=>
=> As far as I know, TEWG works for requirements and they don't
=> have any such charter for protocol related MIBs.
=>
=>--
=>Venkata.