[OSPF] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)

"Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 15 October 2015 12:02 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151015120246.2709.89519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:02:46 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/E5kAp2eTe0pxzaaUJD0KYT3KKdc>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Alvaro's DISCUSS position.  I also wonder why we are turning
OSPF into a generic container protocol.  That approach has caused issues
with BGP and I don't see it being any better doing it in OSPF.

[OSPF] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-iet… Brian Haberman