Hi Joel, Thanks for your useful comments!
We will resolve your comments along with other last call comments. Best regards, Mach -------------------------------------------------- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:35 AM To: "Mary Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross Callon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extensions-05.txt > 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-ospf-interas-te-extensions-05.txt > OSPF 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) It took me three readings to realize what the last sentence of the > Abstract was trying to tell me. 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." OK. > 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." OK, I will add the suggested text into the next revision. > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
