IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10: (with DISCUSS)

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 05 May 2016 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A8C12D0B0; Wed, 4 May 2016 21:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rUD8c1wVCexJ; Wed, 4 May 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446FC12B014; Wed, 4 May 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 77so33095687pfv.2; Wed, 04 May 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=tlyyy/dGS5xhNOi/EObaGpO3lRei/IvkOxu6cBsvOLM=; b=xr028LhRlt6+e64aUmXJ9xZDiLBl9jZgCVDivqauM66Kox0v0impTu2wptFgkTWBMI 77cWZHVZ2WW5rG6qAVw9wl1jxPnxjVPqkfSw/UbB3LmV0Iz5sSGJdursiGbQjK+7YgzK b52/Tg5M2K7z0venJYB1in4YlXrZlW1IHe3cR7GUkPve0UX0IAhPoA0jWEVPaAkofKeJ fooFpIypWZIVo2AmSxqaTlCUI7c/K7s0StQNbRhZhpUGFMV2SBog/QKR4hx1Vo1C4KDQ 6db74FmjmsDRpED0+MGX8QI/UdUxqzTEe9PnHMXVHqaFS/XrHeAHjGVG/pPZQ3YVTIYS gLkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=tlyyy/dGS5xhNOi/EObaGpO3lRei/IvkOxu6cBsvOLM=; b=CjZrhkU5XkWburFEOpzLH01qcK+FXt9+32C4vxRLFqkCcU5eLL/vAiBi8iMN++FYuX 2UJU13OocVz/VJ/gIkzwBxc1+yusMDrsgy2ceXGE3m7OX6ofuEYkT5+gTP1tWPDFxaM8 5plNBDa3p+icdwiVpDt4YtnfdCbFXE2XwWu8uEi+UA/ZV0iEawHFf4ha1j+TVu2A/iyV HtG+/ciklTwXlHHjOUO6ClUu3201iSWrE+vj74pdRmEIZo2DZfd605ntFKQTxAwmFZRo VPPqVUmyHiUb1J1F/kLQSJ1A2XwWp/nE4hWbvb/iSXOtzk0aO7T5KdsQ2Vy2foXq6v1a PsAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVWfMwN1sBCUx2SeXsoV7YRhjFHTZBHnZ9Qu7EmpY/gMTR9wl8+f7BLMnS3R8Hirg==
X-Received: by 10.98.18.11 with SMTP id a11mr17842920pfj.102.1462423717896; Wed, 04 May 2016 21:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Pushpasiss-MacBook-Pro.local ([122.171.166.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u65sm9708871pfa.9.2016.05.04.21.48.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 May 2016 21:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <20160504211229.8272.67553.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAG4d1re1uNPV=HnpFTToG27kr_OoYKmhzunDWYBMSnLetmkaCg@mail.gmail.com> <3a2f71ba6861400c8e556231e5e2f11d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CAG4d1rcroAaupCzp0p9HfnP=wqf=tap-wLxZkqB0xVmauHQZZg@mail.gmail.com> <658ac2cbc94c4f6b8ccc13770eeebb39@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <7C86D5FC-13CC-4F49-9D4C-D91CA79DD9F0@piuha.net> <CAG4d1rc_tDnBKRiS3m5jeEBfnd82vrGFYig3iz1HM46rV8+FEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572AD0A0.9070508@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 10:18:32 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rc_tDnBKRiS3m5jeEBfnd82vrGFYig3iz1HM46rV8+FEg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070409070608080903080305"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/zDYNFvduJIPZ3QLiL1S76QtBB0A>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 May 2016 04:48:40 -0000

Hi Les,

Thanks for suggesting the text..  I was wondering how to resolve this 
comment.. Especially since the text already appeared in RFC7777... :)

Hi Alia,

I will check with the other authors and come back if we are fine with 
this text or not..

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis


On 5/5/16 6:24 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Les,
>
> I also like this wording.  It's definitely an improvement.
> Thanks for your help!  Let's see what the authors say as well.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net 
> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     > How about replacing the second paragraph of Section 4.2 with:
>     >
>     > “Node administrative tags are expected to be associated with a
>     stable
>     > attribute. In particular, node administrative tags MUST NOT be
>     associated
>     > with something whose state can oscillate frequently e.g., the
>     reachability
>     > to a specific destination.
>     >
>     > While no specific limit on the number of node administrative
>     tags which
>     > may be advertised is defined, it is expected that only a modest
>     number
>     > of tags will be required in any deployment.”
>     >
>
>     I’d find this an improvement, i.e., in particular more informative.
>
>     Jari
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email