Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 17 March 2016 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F0D12DBB4 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ts98Dslw0CGk for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CECB012D6AC for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2393; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458199078; x=1459408678; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bnfA1eXpEYBU9JrJeee/hXmqq5QJkybZ/3w3UJs1qIA=; b=QjJcgDtsy+nrHdeb/wiPShm9pc9qTWZoXsoBbOoUGyahuCcnKZN5sA5v dHMlY1fHYWha5YCYMCvSzTw3eYeoSZZzpDyGG65fabgmKjM4Daua4vA6j tBzQaGnFGqrPPtdJrXpZJybTy2Ti4Fofn9Aez10AxBvaIW5KAJBCrSvkM g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,348,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="636325529"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2016 07:17:56 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.55] (ams-ppsenak-nitro6.cisco.com [10.60.140.55]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2H7HtZH016793; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:17:55 GMT
Message-ID: <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:55 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com> <e1c1685f2856424c939bfbea4a5d90a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <e1c1685f2856424c939bfbea4a5d90a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/0DjGOo7VCjU4FMaLtRDaNbT1DaA>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:18:00 -0000

I agree with Les and share the same concerns.

Peter

On 3/17/16 05:40 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> My opinion of the draft has not changed.
>
> It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information - which is not something the protocol should be used to do.
> Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft revision states:
>
> " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to OSPF
>     and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
>     configuration.  "
>
> How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.
>
> IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request. 	
> RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue.
> GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information flooding on the performance of the routing protocol.
>
> Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.
>
>     Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>> (acee)
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
>> To: OSPF WG List
>> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile
>> Service Deployment"
>>
>> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems like a
>> useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and user
>> and third-party applications to convey application-specific information
>> learned from other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already been
>> envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this draft
>> before March 31st, 2016.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>