All -
Please give final review and last comments on
draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt as the CCAMP WG would like to LC the
document.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
-DWard
My comments are as follows:
Abstract
--------
1st sentence:
s/set up/setup/
s/Path/Paths/
Introduction
------------
3rd para:
consider: s/well identified/pre-identified/ I suspect this is closer to
what is meant
4th para:
s/set up/setup/
section 2.
----------
last para, last sent. consider s/one or more/zero or more/
section 3.2.
------------
consider:
- A Tail-end address (used as the TE LSP tail-end address by
other LSRs
^^^
belonging to the same mesh-group when they setup LSPs to this
LSR).
(Continue reading)
At 07:47 PM 8/16/2006 -0500, David Ward wrote: >All - > > Please give final review and last comments on >draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt as the CCAMP WG would like to LC the >document. > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt > > >-DWard Just to be clear on process: This document has already been last called in the CCAMP working group and been submitted to the IESG for publication. However, since this document makes changes / extensions to IS-IS (and to OSPF), it needs to be last called also in the IS-IS (and OSPF) working group(s). We would appreciate comments if any within the next two weeks, particularly on any implications that this could have on the overall operation of IS-IS. Thanks, Ross
Several Issues: 1)It seems clear that the sections relating to IS-IS need revision on at least one fundamental issue. The text refers to "TLV" - but in fact the mesh group information will be a sub-TLV carried inside the proposed capabilities TLV. This affects the wording in a number of places. I leave it to the authors to provide a revision. 2)As to the actual "sub-TLV format" described in Section 4.2: a)I am wondering what the value of the "name_length" byte is? Given that there is a sub-TLV length why do we need this byte? b)The tail-end name is specified to require a NULL terminator. This is unnecessary, because of the sub-TLV length. It also differs in format from the format used for hostnames in RFC 2763 - which is specified to NOT include the NULL terminator. Was any consideration given to consistency? 3)I would also prefer in Section 5.2 where there is a discussion of flooding scope, that rather than specify the settings of specific bits (the S bit in this case) that the document simply refer to the IS-IS Capabilities draft and indicate that the procedures specified therein MUST be followed. This will avoid any possible ambiguity as to whether both documents describe the same behavior. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: David Ward [mailto:dward <at> cisco.com](Continue reading)
Folks - In the absence of any comments on this revision of the draft I am expecting to ask the chairs to move this to last call. If there are any of you out there who have been holding back on your comments - NOW would be a good time to voice them.(Continue reading)Thanx. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:50 PM > To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org > Cc: isis-wg <at> ietf.org > Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of > the IETF. > > Title : Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS > Author(s) : L. Ginsberg, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-00.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2006-6-14
Hi Stephen, Thanks for your comments that will be incorporated in a new revision - Few comments below, On Aug 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Stephen Nadas ((RL/TNT)) wrote: > My comments are as follows: > > section 2. > ---------- > last para, last sent. consider s/one or more/zero or more/ > Has been replaced by "An LSR may belong to more than one TE mesh-group (s)". > section 3.2. > ------------ > consider: > - A Tail-end address (used as the TE LSP tail-end address by > other LSRs > ^^^ > belonging to the same mesh-group when they setup LSPs to > this > LSR). > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The current text in the document is actually correct.(Continue reading)
Hi Les, Thanks for your comments - see in line, On Aug 24, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Les Ginsberg ((ginsberg)) wrote: > Several Issues: > > 1)It seems clear that the sections relating to IS-IS need revision > on at > least one fundamental issue. The text refers to "TLV" - but in fact > the > mesh group information will be a sub-TLV carried inside the proposed > capabilities TLV. This affects the wording in a number of places. I > leave it to the authors to provide a revision. Done. > > 2)As to the actual "sub-TLV format" described in Section 4.2: > > a)I am wondering what the value of the "name_length" byte is? Given > that > there is a sub-TLV length why do we need this byte? > Because you may have multiple TE mesh-group advertise in the same TE- MESH-GROUP TLV. I'll clarify that a single TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may carry more than one group of entries where an entry correspond to a TE mesh-group,(Continue reading)
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
18 | |
17 | |
61 | |
2 | |
3 | |
7 | |
16 | |
20 | |
11 | |
5 | |
3 | |
1 | |
7 | |
26 | |
1 | |
3 | |
2 | |
17 | |
8 | |
8 | |
11 | |
7 | |
14 | |
46 | |
16 | |
31 | |
55 | |
38 | |
32 | |
22 | |
137 | |
52 | |
13 | |
24 | |
46 | |
62 | |
48 | |
4 | |
3 | |
7 | |
4 | |
1 | |
11 | |
3 | |
1 | |
3 | |
2 | |
69 | |
27 | |
14 | |
14 | |
2 | |
5 | |
21 | |
5 | |
15 | |
21 | |
14 | |
3 | |
26 | |
22 | |
18 | |
3 | |
4 | |
22 | |
18 | |
8 | |
7 | |
3 | |
20 | |
7 | |
17 | |
22 | |
19 | |
8 | |
12 | |
11 | |
9 | |
3 | |
7 | |
14 | |
16 | |
4 | |
19 | |
11 | |
13 | |
4 | |
34 | |
14 | |
37 | |
27 | |
3 | |
11 | |
14 | |
26 | |
11 | |
34 | |
42 | |
22 | |
17 | |
16 | |
62 | |
16 | |
38 | |
26 | |
48 | |
28 | |
27 | |
7 | |
21 | |
7 | |
4 | |
1 | |
13 | |
6 | |
7 | |
67 | |
98 | |
71 | |
56 | |
12 | |
54 | |
70 | |
7 | |
54 | |
136 | |
128 | |
69 | |
118 | |
75 | |
90 | |
137 |
