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

Pushpasis -

I am not suggesting that there should be a limit to how many use cases evolve for node admin tags. I am saying with the introduction of node admin tags there are now two ways for a new capability to be advertised. There needs to be guidance as to when it is appropriate to use node admin tags and when it is appropriate to use Router Capabilities. Remaining silent on this subject means that whenever some new use case is proposed we will have to have this discussion over and over again and we will have no guidelines to provide consistency. Unless you intend to eliminate ALL new uses of Router Capability I think this is an issue which cannot be ignored.

There have been some suggestions put forward in the discussion of the companion OSPF draft which may serve as a starting point. I do think this is something that future versions of the draft MUST address.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psarkar@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:22 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Hannes Gredler; isis-wg@ietf.org list
> Cc: draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org; Christian Hopps
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Thanks for the support. Please find few comments inline.
> 
> Regards,
> -Pushpasis
> 
> On 9/29/14, 9:54 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >I support making this a WG document - but I have the same concern which I
> >previously expressed regarding the companion OSPF document i.e. a much
> >more complete discussion regarding the tradeoffs between using node
> tags
> >vs capability identifiers needs to be included .
> [PS] IMO, defining capabilities will restrict the usage of node-admin-tags
> to a finite number of use cases (as there can be only finite number of
> capability definitions). We would not prefer to do that. We would prefer
> the operators to use the node-admin-tags in as many number of use cases
> as
> they want to. This way a node can be part of as many groups as the number
> of values a 32-bit unsigned integer can generate. And the same
> node-admin-tag value can be used for identifying groups by different
> operators with different purpose in their own networks.
> 
> >
> >As Hannes has referenced there has been a lively discussion of this point
> >on the OSPF-WG list - all of which I think is applicable to the IS-IS
> >draft. It would be good if any discussion of that issue in the future was
> >copied to both lists.
> >
> >Also, I would prefer that the Applications content which is found in
> >Section 5 of
> >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-02.txt be
> repeated
> >in the IS-IS draft rather than referenced.
> [PS] IMO, it does not make sense to duplicate text from the OSPF draft.
> But then I am speaking more from a software developers perspective :)
> 
> >
> >   Les
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes
> >> Gredler
> >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:01 AM
> >> To: isis-wg@ietf.org list
> >> Cc: draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org; Christian Hopps
> >> Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance
> >>
> >> 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