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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Les,

Thanks for being accommodating.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 17 June 2020 15:57
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
> <ppsenak=[e-mail]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[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
> 
> 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