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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Wed, 11 May 2016 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC8D12D824 for <>; Wed, 11 May 2016 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 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=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BoJXUDBL4wb4 for <>; Wed, 11 May 2016 14:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8978B12D147 for <>; Wed, 11 May 2016 14:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2690; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463000883; x=1464210483; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=++OGiBbGXtPz4SuOafvaELgMmhk8p9hJoTrkDuaQbYQ=; b=GN+jKOY/BHbJNU3aOLQeyMq9hMgWh0x86X+yby/fTjeGNIB2oPwo70kp 4QCLAqYyo7TGHZVbfXA7NpSulkdZfqXFDBcygcNJkE0OOB/vdA/ltZ+V5 9JYvEZkcywoiUGPXCCHEc+OYuVbMvDG95pky0rE3RRRFEQAQ0lMWdE/lg o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BHAgDLnjNX/4wNJK1egziBUga3I4IPA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BdoYUAhyBIjgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEMBAQQjEUUQAgEGAhoCIwMCAgIwFAEQAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?OBYgvjFidHZBlAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARd8iXCEP4MAglkBBJgnAY4dg?= =?us-ascii?q?WmET4hhj0ABHgEBQoI2gTVuiAt/AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,609,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="106193172"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 May 2016 21:08:02 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4BL81ft013379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 May 2016 21:08:02 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:08:01 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:08:01 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Wunan (Eric)" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP5+KuacAgCnY2AA=
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:08:05 -0000

Hi Eric, 
We discussed this both on the list and at IETF 95. In summary, there is no
general agreement on either whether there is an OSPF third-party
application info distribution use case or, if there is one, whether this
draft meets the requirements.

On 4/14/16, 10:05 PM, "Wunan (Eric)" <> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>I think the motivation below makes sense. Actually this is the way people
>had already been doing, not only operators.
>"One major benefit of using administrative tags rather
>   than IANA defined TLVs or sub-TLVs to indicate different services is
>   to facilitate the rapid deployment of new services without any need
>   for the standardization of those TLVs or sub-TLVs.  However, there
>   are some special use cases where the service to be advertised has one
>   or more attributes which need to be advertised as well.  In such
>   case, the administrative tag is not much applicable anymore"
>Personally I wish one more generalized mechanism can exist instead of one
>Node tag and one proprietary TLV.
>Anyway, I'd like to see this I-D can go further and "lot of things we can
>further improve" at the same time, as Uma mentioned.
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) []
>> 发送时间: 2016年3月17日 10:09
>> 收件人: OSPF WG List
>> 主题: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile
>> 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
>> 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