Hi Acee,
Thanks for your comments -
As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post
the updated ID.
see in line,
On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
JP,
One more comment - Please write the document so that it can
apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative
reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt)
OK. Text added:
OLD:
The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in
[RFC3630]. If
a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is
present, the receiving system MUST only process the first
instance of
the sub-TLV.
NEW:
The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in
[RFC3630]
or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic.
If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-
TLV is
present, the receiving system MUST only process the first
instance of
the sub-TLV.
see below
Thanks,
Acee
Acee Lindem wrote:
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.
Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-)
Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV.
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.
As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote
the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm not
quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA.
3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to
indicate no unconstrained
LSPs are to traverse a given link.
Let's just use the value 0.
4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and
"ISIS LSP"
with "ISIS LSPs".
Thanks.
Cheers.
JP.
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
