Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extensions-05.txt
	OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label
		Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
		Traffic Engineering
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 7-July-2008
IETF LC End Date: 14-July-2008
IESG Telechat date: N / A

Summary:  This document appears ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.  When other document editing is being done, the minor comments below should be considered.

Minor Comments:
1)  It took me three readings to realize what the last sentence of the Abstract was trying to tell me.  Would it be accurate to replace
     "No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is proposed or defined in this document."
with
     "No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS is proposed or defined in this document."
     The reason I ask is that what the document is about is flooding information about inter-AS links.  Such links are actually outside of the AS, and so the current phrasing is slightly confusing.
     As a less informative, but still meaningful last sentence if the above does not work, would adding the following before the existing sentence work for you?:
     "All information described in this document is originated by the site AS Border Router (ASBR)."

2) It is probably the correct decision to carry the AS number of neighbors in this mechanism, rather than relying on other protocols which may or may not have such information.  I would suggest adding a note to the introductory material in section 3 making this point.  The text should simply say something like "while some of this information may be available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid any dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism carries all the information needed for the required TE operations."