Re: Last call complete on Advertisement of inter-AS TE links

[Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>]

Hi Adrian and all,

Thanks for the review and comment.

I will update and resubmit the I-Ds ASAP.

Best regards,			
Mach Chen
  
On 2008-04-10, at 00:06:32 Adrian Farrel wrote:

>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
>>
>> 
>
>
>