Comments on draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@rd.francetelecom.com>]

Hi folks,

I have several comments regarding draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01:

-4.2 Scenario II
Does the final comments "please note that the inter-AS MPLS TE..."
refers only to case 2.
If yes does it mean that, in case 1, the VRF functionality is located on
the RSP PE ? 
This section could require several clarifications...

-4.4 Scenario IV
It could be relevant to illustrate this scenario with severals
application cases, including for instance the following case : A PE-PE
tunnel crossing two ASs of the same SP, for a L2VPN service (ie with
high QoS requirements)

Paragraph 2 : section 3.2 instead of "section 2.2"


-5.9 
"Application scenario II presented in section 3.2 above requires
multiple TE tunnels...". 
This is true only for scenario II case 2. 
(minor :  Section 4.2 instead of 3.2).

-5.10 Confidentiality 
"Optionally the TE LSP path cost within AS2 could be provided to A".
Do you mean that this cost could be provided "a posteriori" within the
Resv message, or "a priori" via PCC-PCS signaling. In the first case
this would require an RSVP extension, that could consist in adding a RRO
Cost subobject.

-6.2 Scalability

-"RSVP-TE"
-"RSVP message flooding"

Why such distinction? IMHO these two points can be grouped together.

Finally, note that we find a real interest in this document, as it
adresses our deployment cases.

Regards,

JL