RE: Inter-area requirements draft

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

Jim,

> I believe the only comment I have heard on my draft:
> 
> draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-00.txt
> 
> Is that it shouldn't cover interas (from the interas draft authors).

I made this comment (among others) to the list on 6/27:

'I agree that both inter-area TE and inter-AS TE should be progressed together, and would not favor progressing inter-AS TE without also progressing inter-area TE.'

It doesn't matter so much that inter-AS and inter-area requirements are progressed in 1 or 2 I-Ds, but it does matter that *both* are progressed.
 
> I had meant to remove those portions from the draft and re-issue 
> prior to the meeting, but I did not get around to it.
> 
> I have a question though, if I contained the scope to inter-area, do
> folks believe it serves a need?  

Yes, as above.

> If so, I would like to do this re-issue directly after the meeting.  
> Then of course the next questions would be if I should do it as a WG 
> document, and if there are other comments folks have.

WG document OK with me.  I also made a few other specific comments in my posting on 6/27:

1. Some of the functionality's in Section 1.1 should be more specific, e.g.,
- what bandwidth specification: Tspec parameters? overbooking considerations?  'reserved bandwidth' as per DSTE?
- what priorities: setup priority? holding priority? preemption priority as per DSTE?
2. Section 3.1: 
"when the source is more than one area away from the destination, the destination's border router may send back a Path Error.  Ideally, the source's border router would try another border router into the destination's area, however with current protocol, the Path Error will propagate to the source."
sounds like a requirement for [crankback] functionality http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-07.txt
3. Section 3.4:
" Diffserv TE should be directly translatable at border-routers, as the class-type of an LSP is explicit for class-types greater than 0 and not-existent in the path message for class-type 0."
Are you proposing to standardize class-type 0 to mean best effort?  Section 1.4 also refers to 'conventions' for class-types 0, 1, and 2.

Thanks,
Jerry