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

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" <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