Speaking as WG Co-Chair: The first time we took this draft to poll for adoption, there wasn’t much interest. Due to the utility of being able to only advertise TE in either OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 in dual stack deployments coupled with the simplicity of allowing endpoints of either address family to be advertised in the TLV-based TE LSAs seems like compelling reasons to do standardize this. At the time, I like to again ask for comments either for or against OSPF WG adoption.
Thanks, Acee From: rtg-dir <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Manav Bhatia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:56 AM To: "<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Routing Directorate <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te Reviewer: Manav Bhatia Review Date: 10/06/2016 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication. The draft proposes something that prima facie appears reasonable -- using a single OSPF instance to set up TE LSPs for both v4 and v6. Comments: The draft is quite simple and i see no technical issues. However, i would like this to go through the regular IETF WG process before it gets pushed to the publication pipeline. Cheers, Manav
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
