Hi,
Yes to this I-D.
Best regards,
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
> Hi,
>
> In Prague we discussed this draft and the general opinion seemed to be that
> this is a useful extension, but that some clarifications needed to be added
> to the I-D. This new revision appears to address all of the concerns as
> below.
>
> Therefore given the interest in Prague and the relevance of this I-D to our
> inter-domain TE charter actions, we are polling the WG for adoption of this
> I-D as a CCAMP draft.
>
> Opinions please.
>
> Thanks
> Adrian and Deborah
>
> ====
> Overlap with L1VPN autodiscovery
>
> A question was raised as to whether there was an overlap
> with the L1VPN autodiscovery work used to distribute
> membership information (draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery)
>
> It appears that the mechanisms and purposes are different.
>
> The authors have added text to clarify that there is no overlap.
>
> Language change for "OSPF" becomes "OSPF-TE"
>
> Concern was raised that the I-D talked about "OSPF" but the
> function is "OSPF-TE".
>
> The authors have updated the I-D accordingly.
>
> Include reference to OSPFv3 as well
>
> A request was made to include OSPFv3.
>
> The authors have added text to explain that the same extensions
> apply to OSPF v2 and OSPF v3 TE extensions.
>
> Make it *incredibly* clear that TE distribution between ASes is
> not in scope.
>
> Although the I-D had plenty of this material, the authors have
> beefed it up further by including the list of things that they are
> not doing from their Prague slides.
>
>
>
>
>