Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt

[Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>]

Hi Adrian and all,

Yes, we will resubmit this I-D before the cut-offs for Chicago. 

Best regards,
Mach

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <default@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Polling for WG adoption of draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt


> Well, I wouldn't say we were overwhelmed with responses, but all that we saw
> were positive (although there is a technical point from Jean-Louis to be
> addresses).
> 
> The chairs believe that this I-D is a useful, if small, building block for
> inter-AS TE so we will make it a WG draft.
> 
> Authors, please resubmit your I-D as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-00.txt. Please make no changes
> except:
> - file name
> - dates
> - anything needed to pass through idnits
> 
> Can you get this done before he cut-offs for Chicago?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:00 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>