Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01.txt

From: "Francois Le Faucheur \(flefauch\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:30:09 +0200

>> TSVWG
>> 
>> The chairs have concluded the WGLC for the document:
>> 
>>          draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01.txt
>> 
>> which started November 8th, has closed.
>> 
>> Allison
>> James
>> Jon
>> 	IETF TSVWG co-chairs

Hello,

I received a couple of good comments privately:
	- the draft discusses forwarding and Router Alert handling for
E2E Path messages, but it does not explicitely discusses the other E2E
RSVP messages which also use Router Alert (i.e. PathTear and ResvConf).
While the handling of those is similar, it is worth being explicit about
that.
	- When discussing the forwarding/encapsulation of E2E Path
message (in section 3.2) the current text make it sounds like the two
"methods" are mutually exclusive , while the 2nd one is more an option
on top of the 1st one. 

I think addressing those would improve the document. So I'd like to
address those quickly in a new rev which would be used for the IESG
review. Below are the proposed edits. Please review and send
comments/concerns if any.

Thanks

Francois

Proposed Edits on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01.txt:
====================================================

In section 3.2,
Replace:
"The preferred method for the Aggregator to send the E2E Path message is
to address it directly to the Deaggregator by setting the destination
address in the IP Header of the E2E Path message to the Deaggregator
address. "
By:
"To send the E2E Path message, the Aggregator MUST address it directly
to the Deaggregator by setting the destination address in the IP Header
of the E2E Path message to the Deaggregator address."

In section 3.2, 
Replace:
"An alternate method for the Aggregator to send the E2E Path is to
encapsulate the E2E Path message in an IP tunnel or in the TE tunnel
itself and unicast the E2E Path message to the Deaggregator, without the
Router Alert option. "
By:
"Optionally, the Aggregator MAY also encapsulate the E2E Path message in
an IP tunnel or in the TE tunnel itself."

In section 3.2,
Replace:
"With both methods, the Router Alert is not set."
By:
"Regardless of the encapsulation method, the Router Alert is not set."

At the very end of section 3.2,
Add:
"PathTear and ResvConf messages MUST be fowarded by the Aggregator to
the Deaggregator exactly like Path messages".

At the very end of section 3.6,
Add:
"On recipt of an E2E ResvConf from the Aggregator, the Deaggregator MUST
forward the E2E ResvConf downstream towards the receiver. In doing so,
the Deaggregator sets the destination address in the IP header of the
E2E ResvConf message to the IP address found in the RESV_CONFIRM object
of the corresponding Resv. The Deaggregator also sets the Router Alert.
"

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur \(flefauch\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:19:00 +0200

Hello again, 

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) 
>> Sent: jeudi 13 avril 2006 15:30
>> To: tsvwg
>> Cc: magnus Westerlund; James Polk (jmpolk)
>> Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01.txt
>> 
>> >> TSVWG
>> >> 
 
As noone raised any comments/concerns, I just posted an updated version
incorporating the proposed edits below.
This is draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-02.txt and should be available on
IETF server shortly.

This version is ready for further IESG review.

Thanks

Francois