RE: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

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

[Re-send, doesn't seem to have made it to the list]

Jim,

> Please review and comment, I also would like to resubmit this as a WG
> document (incorporating wg feedback of course).
> 
> We have nothing covering these, and it would be good to send something in
> this area forward to CCAMP along with the inter-as requirements.

Agreed.  I support as a WG document.

Here are a couple of comments:

1. Section 3.1, 2nd paragraph.  I suggest you add a reference to the [CRANKBACK] draft:
"In overview, the requirements below call for what may be called a crankback method [CRANKBACK] which employs head end direction for regional optimization."
Reference:
[CRANKBACK] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-00.txt

2. Section 3.3, first sentence: "Facility protection of a single link is necessarily intra-area and not applicable to inter-area discussions."

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Many links are routed through a given transport facility, and these links could well be in different areas.  It seems that facility protection ala http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt will be affected by inter-area TE?  This should be clarified.

Thanks,
Jerry