IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 02 October 2014 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780EC1A0081 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 21:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t873SyB6ViOp for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 21:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F8C1A007F for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 21:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id rl12so1816771iec.3 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cfB1GImOhqvFMdsQdoaMLZJEK/mSPVv1Y7ZiPUMqlgM=; b=Fue7UHVb/T5xkkUQhggMmi1FpgshLhxlk1fbZHC6J5k5P6o6UlZba90eb60k4JTcI0 xDf+uY2Ejcx+H4SCx9hNU0j1CNBlTH+WxYiu4Vjv5LK2BxIipu3DHgy+R0EOngBJX0dl 5fYiHQYmKJtCtr/Nf8hCJjxEVgCh0hTM/ilgslfnjMRoyDxO2IfGm04pnIrurPIohhF1 GfrnSA++YqG/Nzb9Bf7kQRwsqYb7ajiKyB3APvTMUgFkQU4Slpl5iORgrWk7wofW2zLa aTls8hptOyK1S5biUF0FOjsm4y6lAgTksC8VZ0R5pIAmaKJDokV021k1cFKxwg59do7L VauA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.122.1 with SMTP id lo1mr999201igb.5.1412225355665; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.90.105 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D0521F45.13DC4%psarkar@juniper.net>
References: <CAB75xn6YTYWO1LjKmATDvt4bia6B+hugcymGkVtSjMMjgjGtpw@mail.gmail.com> <D0521F45.13DC4%psarkar@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:19:15 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: np5zH4lQfJmIgh-CcvlfkI8CiX0
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4cVqxf0mhuFcq9-Lp2mVYRjmFLaUT3=g6tvqdZgrD13A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/ak3gcvlPLFihRNSDTwlRxcJi_70
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, "draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org" <draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@rawdofmt.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 04:49:17 -0000

Hi Pushpasis,

> "- What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation
> of the tag value²
>
> We the co-authors will not like to associate any sort of interpretation
> with the 32-bit unsigned integer used as the tag. We would like the
> operators to use it to any means they would like to (just like
> route-tags). Hence there will be no need for IANA registry allocation for
> the same.

As noted in my mail, I agree with that!
But my intention with top statement was to add text which suggest the
'behavior' - when a node doesn't know what the received tag means?
With "do whatever implementation wants" as a viable option :)

Dhruv


>
> I will add these explicit texts in the next version.
>
> Thanks
> -Pushpasis
>
> On 9/30/14, 7:18 AM, "Dhruv Dhody" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Support moving this work along.
>>
>>Similar to the ospf draft[1], I have following comment...
>>
>>Explicit text should be added for -
>>- Minimum one tag must be present in the 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub-TLV
>>- What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation
>>of the tag value
>>- No IANA registry is required to store the meaning or interpretation
>>of.the tag values.
>>- Backward compatibility behavior  - unknown sub-TLV
>>
>>Nits
>>- Remove reference from abstract for [ISO10589],[RFC1195]
>>- space between 'of' and 'the' is missing in "...grouping ofthe nodes
>>in an IS-IS domain..."
>>- expand LFA,TE, on first use
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dhruv
>>
>>[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/msg07118.html
>>
>>On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
>>wrote:
>>> fellow ISIS-WG,
>>>
>>> The authors have requested ISIS-WG draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02
>>> as a working group document.
>>>
>>> note there has been already a decent level of discussion around
>>>applicability and use
>>> on the OSPF-WG mailing list. please see:
>>>
>>>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/maillist.html
>>>   grep for 'WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag'
>>>
>>> please state support/no-support.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> hannes & chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email