IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Wed, 13 November 2013 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D0421E8152 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:40:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ndtp+yjHmNsU for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95B021E812A for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:40:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384357220; x=1385566820; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=remLZHui2NVQlIrC/xTirgp6u522knbbrxPBtPwxpgk=; b=Ib5xI6qnLuHSnquupU6LqXywEU+9XOk1RtqNqehHDRO+HpM3JPJtupAw geFW3PDhiTisl0XUVC7nWCWg7nVm48sAD8NKUnpg+zXhEtiLsiiicYb6S U6mMmElWaH+MOlFsOo7x3oQ9qHu2/aRABn5NYMdw8vMULitQfe0x09zA8 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAG2cg1KtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagwc4U78pgSEWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIPwcnCxQRAgQOBYd7Bg3ADwSPWwQHgyCBEQOYEJILgyiCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,693,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="284313077"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2013 15:40:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rADFeK4e028471 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:40:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.200]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:40:19 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Thread-Topic: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV
Thread-Index: AQHO3vjPoyHjSCWKVkmOt5Wv7ZKM2pogrt6AgAAItwCAAdwKgIABIFSA
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:40:19 +0000
Message-ID: <65BB90C6-0CA2-4333-8B78-1500DEB871C8@cisco.com>
References: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9192F7@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <CAK=bVC85XAXR3Zkwq+JwELF-dvgrKwbowWCvwvnjeVn7VStnbw@mail.gmail.com> <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9193CD@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50268E6C@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <B2BA430A-F4E6-4DED-A7BB-7282A22802B7@inf-net.nl> <D02397F1-9D1B-4B36-81D0-4585ACDBA34A@gmail.com> <5D184300-2D97-4EC1-8D91-76D4A79B2BDA@inf-net.nl> <DDAE98C5-520E-4F8F-9F9B-2AB9A15A70EF@cisco.com> <7AE67C0F-C4D3-432A-BD4F-F16EA4F06657@inf-net.nl> <DBDD85B3-D1B8-4BEA-8E78-40E0D5A9819C@cisco.com> <1CA101E8-D72D-4930-874E-87B58A2F11EE@inf-net.nl> <CAK=bVC__VpMNAxuYt=Ry5=MtVQwB5KRLLs=tzVZ95yjw29+prA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC__VpMNAxuYt=Ry5=MtVQwB5KRLLs=tzVZ95yjw29+prA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.107]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_65BB90C60CA243338B781500DEB871C8ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <manet-dlep-rg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet-dlep-rg>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:40:28 -0000

Ulrich,

That's fair enough. And if I were arguing for making Resources a MANDATORY TLV, I'd be appropriately chastened… ;-)

But all I'm saying is that Resources becomes the "worked example" of an OPTIONAL metric TLV. If someone doesn't like it, they won't use it.

Stan

On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name<mailto:ulrich@herberg.name>> wrote:

Stan,

I have not followed the detailed discussion closely enough to say whether it is a good idea to put the Resources TLV in another draft or not, but I have to agree with Teco that your argument is not a good one. If the intention of DLEP is to document Cisco's current implementation, then there is the option of sending a draft as independent submission directly to the RFC Editor ("Company Foo's Protocol"). If, however, the intent is to produce a document that has IETF consensus, then resisting change solely because of the necessity to modify an existing implementation is not a strong argument IMO.

Regards
Ulrich


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl<mailto:teco@inf-net.nl>> wrote:

Op 11 nov. 2013, om 18:33 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com<mailto:sratliff@cisco.com>> het volgende geschreven:

> Teco,
>
> I'm opposed to putting Resources in yet another draft. Yes, I understand that you have an implementation. My company has sold units, and has them in the field, interoperating with other company's products. Stripping the Resources TLV makes them non-compliant. IMHO, that's not an option.

Yes, IETF DLEP will not be compatible with your products.
IETF has no objective to be so.
You have to change your code anyway.


>
> I'm not opposed to changing the text around the (now) optional Resources TLV, to make it more vague.

Agreed.


> I am opposed to removing it in its entirety. Hence, I detect that we are at deadlock. Other opinions, please?

There is no deadlock.


Teco

_______________________________________________
manet-dlep-rg mailing list
manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org<mailto:manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email