Re: [Lsr] [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Rob -

IS-IS draft currently states:

"User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to
   Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or
   any other standards body."

(OSPF has this text also.)

I am happy enough to include an additional statement similar to the OSPF text below in Section 4.

Scott can speak for himself of course - but not clear to me that this really satisfies him since his comment was on the OSPF draft that already had this text.

And not clear that this would make Ben (copied) any more comfortable since his concern (clarified in his most recent post) is about discussing allocation of the UDA bit space.

But I will add the text - it makes the two drafts closer in content - which has been an ongoing goal during the review process.

Thanx.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:09 AM
> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; ops-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-
> reuse-14
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Would you be opposed to adding text similar to the OSPF paragraph below to
> the ISIS draft?
> 
> I think that the OSPF draft does a better job of first introducing UDAs.  Having
> just looked at the ISIS draft, it does seem to somewhat assume that the
> reader will just know what they are ...
> 
> I understand that this should resolve Scott's concerns.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: last-call <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
> > Sent: 15 June 2020 11:17
> > To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; ops-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-
> > link-attr-reuse-14
> >
> > that looks just fine to me - thanks
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > > On Jun 15, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Peter Psenak
> > <ppsenak=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Scott.
> > >
> > > there is a following text in the OSPF draft:
> > >
> > >  "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
> > >   applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of
> > >   applications that are not standardized.  We call such an
> > >   application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA".  These
> > >   applications are not subject to standardization and are outside of
> > >   the scope of this specification."
> > >
> > > Feel free to propose an additional text if you feel above is not
> > sufficient.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 14/06/2020 21:22, Scott Bradner via Datatracker wrote:
> > >> Reviewer: Scott Bradner
> > >> Review result: Ready
> > >> I have reviewed the latest version of this document and my earlier
> > issues have
> > >> been resolved at least well enough for teh document to be considered
> > ready for
> > >> publication.
> > >> that said I still do not see where "User Defined Application
> > Identifier" is
> > >> actually cleanly defined - one can read carefully and determine but it
> > would be
> > >> easier on the reader to just say that it is a field that can be used to
> > >> indicate the use of one or more non-standard applications within some
> > scope
> > >> (network, subnet, link, organization, ... not sure what scopes are
> > meaningful
> > >> here but it does not seem that a User Defined Application Identifier
> > would be a
> > >> global (between network operators) value
> > >> Scott
> > >
> > > --
> > > last-call mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
> >
> > --
> > last-call mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call