IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Wed, 13 November 2013 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 EA5CE21E812E for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.941
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 ZOPucsZrAe1g for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22e.google.com (mail-vc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E681521E80C7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id if17so404727vcb.33 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ptWkZRPtiydbhwXj6L/QAXLuhZu/XOmkoFuJEk/J2Mw=; b=yYCYzJ44QeQMaphirQxh6FCP+bl5nPyxBsNzJ8dubG3MbgOFvkxg04MHLbOeFfamMG +el8FD3+qu+qFMTTJIUn9kd/Rqm7XA2ALlXPvV+OOrHGiHejFIgFT9fdg/TNzVT9vN1W 3zJOxDGKAD1eSTSZFa0IPMZ96RW152sc/AzXQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ptWkZRPtiydbhwXj6L/QAXLuhZu/XOmkoFuJEk/J2Mw=; b=cGkRy2odk2j+Wb7pc6ObmWD0A+XhUiO5RzzStGEEDHBjdWSVhaIqSnn22xNWlvG+Wn 1uALllc5aARRzIx1Gogxtyn6rWu3pZ6VTEG1HWAV/OL7YrIDudWX/wX8XLW32copczpF b7+6E9fME5zlPpgjR8bPsKxxJkZJSvDoIagGb41Wz3rKcrCay5fGk+5zPH3DK21isSK3 PSn6wu8hqHuWigahGduwl2/K6snngwUOHzgfagM3a1H7JxVQfOO07YL7LbELZiHxYA1Y 2+r2dQKQQm1I/OCxVdBp2saMMD7Ztiv9essDcatDuRqLlpCQAt6WWKxjL33Hy18KbNbD 6b1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlp8eEmGxliGkQwC3ymWwlaMZVzK2zbimgdLyqYAcd53CeZQWIQIi9oQ3/GGS1IiQvIfens
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.144.168 with SMTP id sn8mr1459180veb.33.1384357355352; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <65BB90C6-0CA2-4333-8B78-1500DEB871C8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC92R=9XW9iMUkMA8dSqbJErj4w+s5hX6o=U6cFZSUfE5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5da93b6895b904eb10d0ea"
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 15:42:37 -0000

Alright ;-) Just wanted to assure that there are technical arguments.

Regards
Ulrich


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com
> wrote:

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email