RE: Routing drafts

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

You answer Greg Bernstein:
 
> > (2) On  draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt:
> > (a) Why does Cisco get a set of reserved sub-TLVs? 
> > 32768-32772 - Reserved for Cisco-specific extension.
> 
> The draft defines several new sub-TLVs, but includes all the sub-TLVs
> from the original TE draft so that there is one place to see all of
> them, and to check for conflicts.  This draft *doesn't* define these
> sub-TLVs -- where were you when the OSPF TE draft went through Last
> Call *twice*? :-)
> 
> But to answer your question, I believe the ADs are looking into that.
> 
If you mean the Cisco reserved allocations, then YES we are checking that.
It should not be in any stds track RFC. I am checking with Routing ADs.
But is Greg not asking for something else too?
It is not clear to me.

Bert