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.
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.
3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to indicate no
unconstrained
LSPs are to traverse a given link.
4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and "ISIS LSP"
with "ISIS LSPs".
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Acreo AB
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
