Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi Kireeti,
           There is some inconsistency in draft-many-ccamp-gmpls
-routing-00.txt (Ist draft) and draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions
-02.txt (IInd draft).In section 5.1 of Ist draft, it is mentioned
that "control channels are advertised into routing as normal links as
mentioned in previous section". But in previous section of document I,
there is no reference of control channels. Furthermore, in OSPF
extensions document (IInd draft), there is no mention of control
channels at all.

Regards,
manoj.


>From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@kummer.juniper.net>
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: GMPLS Routing Drafts
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi,
>
>To clarify: the GMPLS routing drafts have been separated into
>a common document (draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt) and
>protocol specific documents (draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-03.txt
>and draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt).  This follows
>the pattern we took for the signalling drafts -- thanks, Rob,
>for suggesting this.
>
>The common spec will be in CCAMP.
>
>I talked to John Moy, and he thought that CCAMP was a good
>place for the OSPF GMPLS spec.
>
>Tony and Tony, on the other hand, prefer to keep the ISIS
>GMPLS spec in the ISIS WG.
>
>Note that the OSPF TE LSAs are well separated from "regular"
>LSAs, so a hands-off approach works well.  In IS-IS, the
>separation is not as complete, and the issues of limited TLV
>space as well as fragment space mean that it would be useful
>to have the gods of ISIS watch over the spec.
>
>Kireeti.
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp