RE: Last call comments: draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

JP, Adrian, et al,

Quick question in-line.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:jvasseur@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:41 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be; dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Arthi
> Ayyangar; LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN; v.sharma@ieee.org; TE; CCAMP
> Subject: Re: Last call comments:
> draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt
> 
> 
<<snip>>

> >The issue clearly gets fuzzy when the LSP traverses part of the network 
> >that is out of the
> >originating SP's direct control (i.e. another AS). But here we 
> are talking 
> >only about
> >areas.
> 
> But as you know the solutions will apply to both inter-area and inter-AS.
> 

Actually, this is something that I've been wondering about as the
discussion on inter-area has progressed. Is there expected to be a 
separate document detailing inter-AS requirements?

Given that the framework and other related drafts are jointly addressing
inter-area and inter-AS issues, how come the requirements document(s) is
not? 

Perhaps I missed some of this evolution, but if someone could shed some 
light on this, that would be appreciated.