Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09

[Ballot comment]
Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the
description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of the new data
about Shared Risk Link Groups, protection information, and interface switching.  About
the only I thing that seemed to relate to that was the "if you're looking for diverse paths,
choose links with different SRLGs" statement.  I then decided it was probably in the OSPF doc,
but it doesn't seem to be in OSPF-gmpls-extensions either.  Is there some other doc that talks
about how implementors should consider the interactions among these pieces of data? 
For example, what should you do when one link is listed as protected, but in the same SRLG,
where another link is a different SRLG but unprotected?  Is deterministic behavior on this not
something which is important?

[Ballot comment]
Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the
description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of the new data
about Shared Risk Link Groups, protection information, and interface switching.  About
the only I thing that seemed to relate to that was the "if you're looking for diverse paths,
choose links with different SRLGs" statement.  I then decided it was probably in the OSPF doc,
but it doesn't seem to be in OSPF-gmpls-extensions either.  Is there some other doc that talks
about how implementors should consider the interactions among these pieces of data?  For example, what should you do when one link is listed as protected, but in the same SRLG,
where another link is a different SRLG but unprotected?  Is deterministic behavior on this not
something which is important?

[Ballot comment]
COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08:
 
  The Abstract is very weak.  I propose:

      This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying
      link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
      (GMPLS).  This document enhances the routing extensions required to
      support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE).

  Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2.  This
  will turn section 2 into a very good introduction.

  Spell out first use of SPF.

COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11:

  Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2.  This
  will turn section 2 into a very good introduction.

AD (Bert) is Checking with WG chairs:
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: dinsdag 7 oktober 2003 15:51
To: Kireeti Kompella; Ronald P. Bonica;
Cc: Wijnen, Bert; Alex Zinin
Subject: RE: Publication request


Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: vrijdag 3 oktober 2003 15:01
> To: Wijnen, Bert; Alex Zinin
> Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; Kireeti Kompella; iesg-secretary@ietf.org
> Subject: Publication request
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The following two documents:
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-07.txt

I get:
  $ /bin/checkpage.awk  and
> draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-10.txt

Mmmm.. I see a revision 9 (december 2002), but not 10.
Should I wait for 10 ?

I also wonder:
  - Why do you not list I-Ds by name in ref section.
    It now makes it more difficult for all of us to find proper
    couments that are being referenced

> have been through the CCAMP WG Last Call and the IETF Last Call,
> and the suggested changes incorporated.
>
I believe you also pointed out to OSPF WG that last call was going
on right? So that would make me assume OSPF folk have reviewed as well.
Did any other WGs or RTG area review it as well?

> Please consider them for publication as a box set (they
> cross-reference each other normatively).
>
Will do. Pls answer above and tell me if you want to do a quick
rev first or if you rather see me put them on IESG agenda.

Alex?
Bert
> Kireeti.
>

Several comments were received during IETF Last Call.
The WG chairs have been asked to check and discuss with authors and or WG to come up with answers.
If needed, new revisions should be made.

AD checked with authors/chairs on
April 2nd
March 11th
Feb 28th

Checking with WG chairs on result of Last Call on OSPF mailing list, and checking on status of all the work-in-progress documents that are listed as normative references.

On 29 August 2002, I asked the WG chairs:
> And how far have these documents been discussed in
> the RTG (OSPF) WGs? At least the relevant RTG WGs
> should have been made aware of these docs being in
> WG Last Call, or so I think.
>
Sofar I have not received an answer and today I asked again.