Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV

["Taylor, Rick" <[e-mail]>]

I'd like to use Resources as a 'worked example' of an Extension metric TLV.

Only because I think it is a 'wishy-washy' metric that I don't want to see creep in as a core metric.

If Stan has uses for it, then Stan can specify it as a requirement for his use-cases, or we can firm up the definition.  Either/or as far as I'm concerned, but as it currently stands I don't want to see it as a core metric, optional or not.

Sorry!

Rick Taylor

________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
Sent: 13 November 2013 15:40
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: DLEP Research Group ([e-mail]); Teco Boot
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV

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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Op 11 nov. 2013, om 18:33 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg


The information contained within this e-mail and any files attached to this e-mail is private and in addition may include commercially sensitive information. The contents of this e-mail are for the intended recipient only and therefore if you wish to disclose the information contained within this e-mail or attached files, please contact the sender prior to any such disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. Please also contact the sender and inform them of the error and delete the e-mail, including any attached files from your system. Cassidian Limited, Registered Office : Quadrant House, Celtic Springs, Coedkernew, Newport, NP10 8FZ Company No: 04191036 http://www.cassidian.com