The changes made through revision -04 address all the minor comments I had made previously. Thank you. The document is still read for publication as a Proposed Standard.
Joel M. Halpern Joel M. Halpern wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
