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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1F21B3331; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 kptUt7y6ZcA7; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 649D71B332F; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3308; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445589492; x=1446799092; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Tk/pv8W5vP8hmE/DoW8rHS6p27HEQ9QUtpiX7bigusQ=; b=HvbBaKRtRK9BL3PFf/GZtkruFEmwpCLEfDpYHIdPQFMUK4VKEwj9Ix7T VR9T7rA5jljyI/xU68MQNTIWN14TJmKF0vYCL0FnM9Ww+nA6a1o6EtUjr JjPJofqZxLcXgId0MUH5ymJ5FrvFrMcr5bC+LyClfD3tbTo41iCMVeUQC k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,185,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="612347255"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2015 08:38:09 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.89] (ams-bclaise-8918.cisco.com [10.60.67.89]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9N8c8BZ011128; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:38:09 GMT
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20151012133425.11612.85728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936166BA175@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <BY1PR0501MB138120662F3970B3DAC56EADD5300@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5629F1DC.8010502@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:37:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB138120662F3970B3DAC56EADD5300@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/KOcpm4mN8Gv6HhWRZZO26tdmSa8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 23 Oct 2015 08:38:14 -0000

Thanks, Benoit
> David/Ben,
>
> Pls see in-line
>
> Rgds
> shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 7:09 PM
> To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>om>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: acee@cisco.com; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org; ospf-chairs@ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org; Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
> 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:bclaise@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:34 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: Black, David; acee@cisco.com;
>> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin- tag@ietf.org; ospf-chairs@ietf.org;
>> ospf@ietf.org
>> 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.
>>