Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

[Rohit Dube <[e-mail]>]

Venkata,

Thanks for your comments. Some of my own are inline.

A meta comment first - our first goal is to clear the decks
by getting done with all the work (drafts + implementation
experience) that has accumulated over time. Once enough
of this done, it would be a natural point for the WG to
expand on the charter.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:22:02 -0500 "Naidu, Venkata" writes:
=>Rohit/Acee,
=>
=> Some quick comments w.r.t new charter.
=>
=> 1. Can you consider "Flooding Optimizations" into charter ?
=>    If not, can you please explain the reason, why we should not ?
=>    This is field of its own - we might expect lot of drafts.

We considered this but would like to see some operational requirements
before including this in the charter. Is anybody running OSPF networks
hitting this problem with no workarounds in sight?

It would be a candidate for a future version of the charter once some
of the current items clear.

=>
=> 2. One of the Alex's work "OSPF Link-local Signaling" will
=>    be very imp for future OSPF enhancements. As you know,
=>    the options are getting over in OSPF headers.
=>
=> 3. "OSPF TE" and "OSPF Hitless Restart" MIBs must be
=>    considered as separate drafts. Recent OSPFv2 MIB only
=>    talks about Opaque LSAs - but content carried in those
=>    LSAs are not specified in any MIB. I am be willing
=>    to write those drafts - what is your opinion, Kireeti/Padma ?

I was considering reflecting OSPF-TE in a MIB too. And this could
be a potential item for this or a future. But is there an operator
burning for this stuff?

=>
=> 4. "Flooding over Parallel Point-to-Point Links" can be
=>    considered as an informational RFC.

What draft are you referring to?

=>
=> Thank You.
=>
=>--
=>Venkata.

Best,
--rohit.