Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Wed, 03 September 2014 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F50C1A049E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYjH7b8sqLBC for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0183.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC1F11A03C2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hannes-mba.local (193.110.55.12) by DM2PR05MB448.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:45:54 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C622B09E4; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:45:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:45:43 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com> <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.55.12]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR06CA0038.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.160.40.166) To DM2PR05MB448.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.152)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 032334F434
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(83072002)(85852003)(92726001)(77982001)(92566001)(86362001)(107046002)(4396001)(101416001)(83322001)(93886004)(99396002)(97756001)(90102001)(230783001)(21056001)(23726002)(87976001)(76482001)(81342001)(106356001)(79102001)(85306004)(74502001)(77096002)(50466002)(46406003)(31966008)(50986999)(54356999)(105586002)(95666004)(46102001)(81542001)(76176999)(102836001)(64706001)(36756003)(20776003)(47776003)(19580395003)(74662001)(76506005)(80022001)(66066001)(83506001)(33656002)(110136001)(579124003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB448; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/-0DAcdQdGOcuxkloDNRSAxhXsdU
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:46:47 -0000

hi dhruv,

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:39:58PM +0530, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
| Hi Shraddha,
| 
| Thanks for your reply, snipping to the open point...
| 
| > Also, it should be stated
| > - if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed.
| >
| > <Shraddha>More than one instance of the TLV can be added in same RI-LSA or in a multiple instance as defined
| >                        In  draft-acee-ospf-rfc4970bis-00.txt
| >
| Okay, text may be added to reflect this.
| 
| > (2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is required to store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.
| >
| > <Shraddha> It's mentioned in the section 4.2 that no well known  tag values will be defined by this document.
| >
| Since in the mailing list there is a discussion about possibility of
| having well known tag value assigned by IANA. This document should
| clarify (based on WG consensus) if admin tags can be assigned by IANA
| in future documents or not. And if the answer is yes, a suitable range
| should be set to avoid conflict.

i have no concerns with that -
however peter seems in favor of using CAP Bits for well-known applications;

would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that.

/hannes