Some Comments - I personally don't like the word Anomalous Bit, I prefer something like Exceeded Bit - why are some Sub TLVs are stated as do not send when not measured and others are set to all 1's when not measured? Section 8 requires that every sub-TLV can be enabled and disabled individually.
Section 4.2 In my opinion the A bit should exist for the Min Delay and Max Delay Value and not only combined for both values, if not splitted to two Sub-TLV as there can be cases where a min delay must be met and others where there a max delay which should not be exeeded. Section 4.7 "The bandwidth utilization advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the bandwidth from the system originating this Sub-TLV." I would like to change it to something like: The bandwidth advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the bandwidth utilization from the system originating this Sub-TLV. Section 6 Only the accelerated advertisement threshold mechanism described in section 6 may shorten the re-advertisement interval. the mechanism is described in Section 5 Regards Karsten Am Freitag, 19. September 2014, 17:49:10 schrieb Acee Lindem: After more than 3 years of discussion and revision, the chairs feel that we are ready for a WG last call on the OSPF TE Metric extensions. While it is only one piece of an end-to-end delay/loss aware routing solution, we believe that the draft, as scoped, is ready. The WG last call will end at 12:00 AM PDT on Oct 4th, 2014. For your convenience, here is a URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions[1]/ Thanks, Acee and Abhay -------- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
