Hi Anton, Alvaro, and Mike,

In preparation for WG last call, I have a couple comments.


  1.  Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF Cross 
Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”?
  2.  Can you change the requirements language text to the RFC 8174 version?
  3.  In the section 3 mapping algorithm, why do you walk the X-AF endpoints 
from all connected areas? Why not just the area of local IP address?
  4.  In the backward compatibility section, can you also discuss the 
requirements for backward compatibility of the endpoints? Also state that the 
X-AF tunnel will not be recognized unless the endpoints are advertised by the 
same protocol (OSPFv2 or OSPFv3); or describe the behavior if this is not the 
intension.

Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to