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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Benoit
> David/Ben,
>
> Pls see in-line
>
> Rgds
> shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 7:09 PM
> To: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black, David <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)
>
> Benoit,
>
>> I was initially confused by that sentence.
> My understanding is that "independent characteristics" applies on a tag-by-tag basis.  I might suggest:
>
> 	Each tag carried by the administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to
> 	indicate a characteristic of a node that is independent of the
> 	characteristics indicated by other administrative tags.
> <Shraddha> Thanks for the text. Updating -08 version with above text.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:34 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: Black, David; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail];
>> [e-mail];
>> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin- [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07:
>> (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Benoit Claise 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> - "Tags carried by the
>>     administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
>>     characteristics of a node."
>>
>> I was initially confused by that sentence.
>> So there are tags carried by a different TLV than the administrative one?
>> Actually, no (I checked with one of the authors).
>> I would simply write:
>>     "Administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
>>     characteristics of a node."
>>
>> This would be in line with the definition:
>>     An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
>>     identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.
>>
>> - Router information LSA [RFC4970] can have link, area or AS
>>     level flooding scope.  Choosing the flooding scope to flood the group
>>     tags are defined by the policies and is a local matter.
>>
>> "and is a local matter". Hopefully there is some sort of centralized
>> management application that checks consistency.
>>