I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt
ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 7-July-2008
IETF LC End Date: 14-July-2008
IESG Telechat date: N / A
Summary: This document appears ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard. When other document editing is being done, the minor comments
below should be considered.
Minor Comments:
1) (comment on abstract based on problem found when reading OSPF document.)
The last sentence of the Abstract is somewhat confusing. Would it be
accurate to replace
"No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is
proposed or defined in this document."
with
"No support for flooding information from within one AS to another
AS is proposed or defined in this document."
The reason I ask is that what the document is about is flooding
information about inter-AS links. Such links are actually outside of
the AS, and so the current phrasing is slightly confusing.
As a less informative, but still meaningful last sentence if the
above does not work, would adding the following before the existing
sentence work for you?:
"All information described in this document is originated by the
site AS Border Router (ASBR)."
2) It is probably the correct decision to carry the AS number of
neighbors in this mechanism, rather than relying on other protocols
which may or may not have such information. I would suggest adding a
note to the introductory material in section 3 making this point. The
text should simply say something like "while some of this information
may be available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid
any dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism
carries all the information needed for the required TE operations."
3) Is there a reason that the OSPF and ISIS document differ as to the
strength of recommending a specific setting of the flooding scope? The
OSPF documents say that it SHOULD be area specific. The ISIS document
merely describes the two settings (level specific and inter-layer
flooding allowed) without making either one a SHOULD.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
