The WG last call has ended. We issue a new version addressing Dave's
comments once we've agreed on the updated text among the document
authors.
Thanks,
Acee
On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
Hi Dave,
We'll provided an updated version of the draft addressing your
comments. We need to discuss among the authors.
On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:23 PM, David Ward wrote:
Acee and OSPF'ers -
A few comments:
0) It's unclear what happens if the value of the instance_id
(which has semantics of AF/SAF) and the prefix options bits in
2.2.2 don't match. What happens in this failure case and what
should win?
a) in addition, what happens if an instance_id >= 128 is received?
1) The draft may want to call out a few more details that are in
5340 that the instance_id is per link and a few of the rules in 5340.
I agree we need to clarify these cases. I wish the original OSPFv3
RFC hadn't included any bits without specification of how they are
going to be used.
2) It isn't clear if there are or should be rules for leaking
routes between instances. For example:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-
routing-ospf-07.txt
requires that leaking and policy is required. Given that, it seems
you have to have some general rules and failure conditions. For
example, leaking between instances of the same AF could be allowed
and they are to be imported as ASE ...
I don't think this should be specified other than the obvious rule
that the any imported routes should be from the same address
family. Note that the above draft is an experimental draft and its
utility remains to be proven.
<As an aside I've cc'ed the CCAMP WG chairs to be aware of this
draft and WG LC>
3) Do you want to set aside a small set of instance_ids for non-
routing information at this time? Given you have taken on the
work, and you know it is coming maybe it makes sense now?
I'll discuss with other authors. The space is very small (256 code
points), so we have be careful we don't restrict this too much.
Thanks,
Acee
I have other comments but, this is a start.
-DWard
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
This starts the Working Group Last Call for the subject document.
The target status is proposed standard.
The WG Last Call will start today and end March 12th at 12:00 AM
EDT.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
