[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Isis-wg] Further short CCAMP WG Last Call ondraft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.txt
Hi Lee
We've just submitted v04 that accounts for your comments.
Thanks,
JL
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 15 décembre 2006 19:23
> À : zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk; LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Cc : ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [Isis-wg] Further short CCAMP WG Last Call
> ondraft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.txt
>
> 1)The use of TLV and sub-TLV is not consistent throughout the
> document regarding IS-IS. For example, in the second and
> third paragraphs of Section 4.2:
>
> The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried
> within an IS-
> IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
>
> The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the
> same as the
> TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
> [RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1
> octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
>
> "TLV" should be "sub-TLV" in all cases except when referring
> to the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV.
> Also [OSPF-CAP] should be [IS-IS-CAP]
>
> Similar changes needed in Section 5.2 and some other places.
>
> 2)In Section 5.2:
>
> The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
> NOT appear
> more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV. If a TE Node
> Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an ISIS
> Capability TLV, only the first occurrence MUST be processed, other
> occurrences MUST be ignored.
>
> I would prefer that the second sentence be omitted - for
> reasons that have been discussed in the context of the PCE
> draft - I have repeated the relevant comments here:
>
> <snip>
> In cases where a TLV may move from one LSP fragment to
> another (for example because of the addition of information
> which exceeds the carrying capacity of the original LSP
> fragment) a router may have multiple copies of the same TLV
> as a transient condition. It is impossible to know which of
> the copies is newer and therefore impossible to
> deterministically decide which is the first instance of a
> subTLV. So it is better to leave the behavior in this case as
> undefined.
> <end snip>
>
> Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:33 AM
> > To: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Isis-wg] Further short CCAMP WG Last Call
> > ondraft-ietf-ccamp-te- node-cap-03.txt
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry, I fumbled this.
> >
> > Jean-Louis made some significant changes after we completed the
> > working group last call. He took on board the comments from CCAMP,
> > ISIS and OSPF and made the changes that he describes below.
> >
> > Since one of these changes is relatively substantial (the
> conflation
> > of two bit-fields into one) I want to give everyone a chance to
> > comment before we go forward to the ADs.
> >
> > So, there is a one week last call running on the CCAMP mailing list
> > until noon GMT 22nd December 2006.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-
> > ftgroup.com>
> > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:25 AM
> > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.txt
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This new version accounts for comments received during the
> CCAMP ISIS
> > and OSPF WG last call.
> >
> > Here are the main changes:
> >
> > -The data plane and control plane cap sub-TLVs have been
> removed. The
> > capabilities are now carried directly with the TE Node Capability
> > Descriptor TLV, and there is a single registry for both control and
> > data plane capabilities.
> >
> > -In section 5:
> > "other occurences MUST be discarded" replaced by "other occurrences
> > MUST be ignored"
> >
> > -In section 6:
> > "a router not supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST
> > just silently ignore the TLV"
> > Replaced by: "a router not supporting the TE Node Capability
> > Descriptor TLV will just silently ignore the TLV"
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JL
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] De la part de
> > > Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Envoyé : mardi 21 novembre 2006
> 21:50 À :
> > > i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc : ccamp@ops.ietf.org Objet : I-D
> > > ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.txt
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts
> > > directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement
> > > Plane Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > > Title : IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic
> > > Engineering Node Capabilities
> > > Author(s) : J. Vasseur, et al.
> > > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.txt
> > > Pages : 13
> > > Date : 2006-11-21
> > >
> > > It is highly desired in several cases, to take into
> account Traffic
> > > Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
> > > Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic
> Engineered
> > > Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as for
> instance the
> > > capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a
> > > Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these
> > > capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol
> (IGP). For that
> > > purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First
> > > (OSPF) and
> > > Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic
> > > engineering
> > > extensions for the advertisement of control plane and
> data plane
> > > traffic engineering node capabilities.
> > >
> > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-03.
> > > txt
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>