Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Pyda Srisuresh (srisuresh_at_YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 09:39:52 CST
I am taking te-wg off the mail list as the following
discussion pertains to OSPF WG only.
I was not present at the Atlanta IETF. But, I looked
at the work group minutes posted on 12/11. The minutes
say that MOSPF and OSPF-flooding reduction are beign dropped
from the charter. I saw no mention of alternate ospf-te
proposals from being dropped.
Same thing goes for the mailing list. I am not aware of any
discussion on the list suggesting alternate ospf-te proposals
being dropped from the charter.
If the WG charter is to cover the OSPF for TE and non-TE, the
charter must include discussion of multiple ospf-te proposals.
If the charter is written to imply that it covers Opaque LSA
based TE extensions only and no alternate ospf-te proposals, then
such an implication is not apparent and should be discussed.
katz-yeung draft has several shortcomings, hasnt completed the
IETF last call and is not an RFC yet. To presuppose the
katz-yeung draft to be the only viable TE protocol and to
exclude alternate proposals is a mistake, IMHO.
Would appreciate your posting the exact wording of the updated
charter for the WG on the mailing list.
From: Rohit Dube [mailto:rohitxebeo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:38 AM
To: Jim Boyle
Cc: Pyda Srisuresh; te-wgops.ietf.org; pjosephForce10Networks.com;
aceeredback.com; zininpsg.com; fennerresearch.att.com
Subject: Re: draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-04.txt
The katz-yeung ospf-te draft is scheduled to go to ietf-wide last call
(if it hasn't already).
The ospf-wg charter was recently debated on the ospf mailing wrt an
update. It was also discussed extensively by me, Acee and the routing ADs
and at the ospf-wg meeting in atlanta. The charter agreed upon does not
include any work-item for alternate ospf-te proposals.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:08:20 -0500 (EST) Jim Boyle writes:
=>So it is more of a contribution to the OSPF WG, not the TEWG?
=>I'll ask ietf-secretary to make the corresponding changes.
=>You might want to forward the announce message to OSPF WG.