Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt

Uma Chunduri <> Thu, 16 October 2014 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECE51A6FD5 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVyZR2EOUOXu for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27EA31A6FD6 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-9e-543faf33a7c2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BC.16.25146.33FAF345; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:42:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:05:34 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <>
To: Anton Smirnov <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP6MffXf+0jJgBiEirm9lX8pBtF5wxzYkggADtM4CAAEWVIA==
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:05:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn67JevsQg28PuCxatrFatNy7x+7A 5DHl90ZWjyVLfjIFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZbzY/JGxYLtUxaKe0AbGLaJdjJwcEgImEhs/ v2WEsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUeLSoT5mCGc5o8SSx9tZQKrYBPQkPk79yQ5iiwi4Szzov8EK YgsLpEs8WvgEKp4h8fD3ZhYI20li/d25YHEWAVWJyc93gtm8Ar4SF7tfskIsWMIocXBpD1gD p4CmRMOKE2wgNiPQSd9PrWECsZkFxCVuPZnPBHGqgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/7FC2IoS+/qns0PU 60gs2P2JDcLWlli28DUzxGJBiZMzn7BMYBSdhWTsLCQts5C0zELSsoCRZRUjR2lxalluupHh JkZgNByTYHPcwbjgk+UhRgEORiUe3gVq9iFCrIllxZW5hxilOViUxHk1q+cFCwmkJ5akZqem FqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamCcxnKzx81qodo9z3SW1g0XeVdMmnv41ZpKd/3I1kOW25ykbjd8 Czny4UDCFdX5fC4HDmRUXbJY4VZ2ZM9X99tsGxSjRE9occRmMfBNdVo18XDekvNfjB4aXhFi iOb8tNHf8anecj6pFcUfYx6yR+4sKBF89n3DlNznrvsTP15lXPUiYuuet7uMlFiKMxINtZiL ihMBRXp8qGcCAAA=
Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:05:47 -0000

Hi Anton,
Thanks for reading the document and bringing the subtle difference with node Admin tags. 
In-line ..[Uma]:

Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Smirnov [] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:36 AM
To: Uma Chunduri;
Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt

    Hi Uma,
    there is very important difference with admin tags.
    Admin tags have known formatting. Because of this it is possible to advertise a tag from implementation even if it doesn't support functionality which local network policy designates to the tag.
[Uma]: The part which is common here is advertising  information from the local Policy into the OSPF area/Domain. But in case of Self-defined TLV you are also associating and advertising certain  attributes and this can also be used by an external entity
             to make certain decisions/derive some conclusions. This is the key.
    Self-defined TLV does not have fixed formatting known beforehand. So only the implementation which is aware of its internals can originate and interpret it. For this reason it is more like Experimental or Vendor-Specific Sub-TLV.
[Uma]:  Yes, if node which receives  Self-defined TLV, and doesn't support the functionality it can't interpret it . The part what is similar is, even if Admin tag with fixed format is understood by the receiving node,
              which can't support the functionality can't  still interpret the meaning of it.
For this reason it is more like Experimental or Vendor-Specific Sub-TLV.
[Uma]: I would not say "vendor" specific , rather deployment specific as interpreted and provisioned by the operator.


On 10/16/2014 01:30 AM, Uma Chunduri wrote:
> Dear OSPF WG,
>   Please see the link for the document below.
> Abstract:
>     This document proposes a TLV within the body of the OSPF Router
>     Information (RI) Opaque LSA, called Self-defined Sub-TLV Container
>     TLV.  Here the term OSPF means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.	
> Comments/Concerns/Suggestions welcome!
> --
> Uma C.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:32 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri; Luis M. Contreras; Xiaohu Xu; Luis M.Contreras; 
> Xiaohu Xu; Uma Chunduri
> Subject: New Version Notification for 
> draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt
> A new version of I-D, draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the IETF repository.
> Name:		draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs
> Revision:	00
> Title:		Using Self-defined Sub-TLVs for Agile Service Deployment
> Document date:	2014-10-15
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		7
> URL:  
> Status:
> Htmlized:
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list