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

"Wunan (Eric)" <eric.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <eric.wu@huawei.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 91DAE12DEEE for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bvr55q0tLA6j for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6407C12DCB9 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHL28102; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 02:05:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 03:05:18 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.22]) by SZXEMA415-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:05:12 +0800
From: "Wunan (Eric)" <eric.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRgH9Ub5/WrKyOeUaJiIu3cM0Uxp+JkQrQ
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 02:05:12 +0000
Message-ID: <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650841024E2@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.105]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.57104C60.0037, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.7.22, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3cd4dee8c3599a9d0141cab4c8935ea7
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/IQ57NAF85TB73xs8vr-uyLvEY6g>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 02:05:24 -0000

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.

Regards
Eric

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> 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 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