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

Folks,

Please ignore my previous question. I had read JP and Raymond's draft
a while ago, but completely forgot that it is the WG document addressing
inter-AS requirements!

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vishal Sharma [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:48 AM
> To: Jean Philippe Vasseur; Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Arthi
> Ayyangar; LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN; TE; CCAMP
> Subject: RE: Last call comments:
> draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt
> 
> 
> JP, Adrian, et al,
> 
> Quick question in-line.
> 
> -Vishal
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:41 AM
> > To: Adrian Farrel
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Arthi
> > Ayyangar; LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN; [email protected]; 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.
>