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

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

draft-ietf-isis-te-app-17 has been posted with this change.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:53 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
> <ppsenak=[e-mail]>; Benjamin Kaduk
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-
> reuse-14
> 
> I'm fine if both documents have the text
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > last-call mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call