Last call complete on Advertisement of inter-AS TE links

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

The last call completed. Given the high level of review and discussion in 
the past and the relatively small size of the I-Ds, I'm not surprised that 
we only got a couple of comments during last call.

Mach, can you make the changes to the I-D to satisfy Acee's comments on the 
OSPF draft, and check to see if there is any similar language in the IS-IS 
draft? One point...

Where he suggests alternative text for "TE Router ID", I think this is fine, 
but it would be helpful if you retained "TE Router ID" in brackets to give 
the extra information.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Acee Lindem" <acee@redback.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "OSPF List" <ospf@ietf.org>; "CCAMP List" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links


> I can't speak for the OSPF WG as a whole, but I have reviewed the  subject 
> document and am very happy to see that the suggestion to use  separate 
> inter-AS LSA types has been incorporated. I have no further  technical 
> comments on the document and trust that the ccamp WG has  verified that 
> this information encoding meets the TE requirements.  The usage described 
> in sections 2.2 and 2.3 seem reasonable to me.
>
> I have the following editorial comments:
>
>   1. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2 - Both of these say "Use of the TE  Router 
> ID is RECOMMENDED." I believe these should be respectively  replaced by 
> "Use of the TE Router Address as specified in the Router  Address TLV 
> [OSPF-TE] is RECOMMENDED." and "Use of the TE Router IPv6  Address as 
> specified in the IPv6 Router Address as specified in the  IPv6 Router 
> Address TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] is RECOMMENDED."
>   2. Section 3.2.1 states "This is because... that may operate in a 
> different address space;". If they are using a different address  space on 
> the link between the ASes, then I'd expect there to be  problems with BGP 
> as well :^) I'd suggest:
>       "Given that OSPF is an IGP and should only be utilized between 
> routers in the same routing domain, the OSPF specific Link ID and 
> Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to inter-AS links.".
>   3. You may want to expand some acronyms on their first use. For 
> example, "AS Boundary Router (ASBR)", "Link State Advertisement  (LSA)" 
> and
>      "Path Computation Element (PCE)".
>   4. [OSPFV3] is listed to as both a Normative and Informative  reference.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > You may recall providing useful review and feedback on
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- 
> > te-extension-02.txt
> >
> > The authors believe that they have taken on board all the comments 
> > received
> > from the OSPF working group and have updated the draft accordingly.
> >
> >
> > CCAMP is holding a three week working group last call on this I-D  along 
> > with
> > its IS-IS partner document:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas- 
> > te-extension-00.txt
> >
> > These documents describe how to advertise the TE links that connect  an 
> > AS to
> > the outside world within the AS's IGP. As the drafts are at pains  to 
> > point
> > out, there is no proposal to advertise the TE information more  widely 
> > (such
> > as to other ASes).
> >
> > The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008.
> >
> > Please send your comments to the CCAMP list or direct to the CCAMP 
> > chairs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian and Deborah
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OSPF mailing list
> > OSPF@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf