Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Fri, 05 September 2014 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.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 58EF31A0AE8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ZqmdE9TqiQP for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3041A0739 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-09-54099332103b
Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C7.35.05330.23399045; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:40:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:44:29 -0400
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvpZCOAgAXeF4CAAID8AIAACf2AgADYjgCAAPVZAIAAM3wAgADPEYA=
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D02E3551.70428%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com> <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com> <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865DC895@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <ab163b1c2bb84fd49a20231d45a21026@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <4F0D99D410E82247BF168BC20EA945BE@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrK7RZM4Qg5kfpCwmv53HbNG/4gyL Rfe8n0wW/feesFm03LvHbnHj0V5mBzaPKb83snrsnHWX3aPlyFtWjyVLfjJ5XG+6yh7AGsVl k5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVsfDmC7aCGXIVk9bfZ2pg3CLbxcjJISFgInFm9y12CFtM4sK99WxdjFwc QgJHGSVeTtzBDJIQEljGKLHmShSIzSZgIPH/23EWkCIRgcOMEktWvWQBSTALKEs87lrNBmIL C3hLzGzuAYuLCPhIPDy3G2gDB5CdJDH1qA5ImEVAReLp+78sIGFeAXOJO1sCIPY+YZa49OUa K0gNp4C2xNQPqxlBbEag476fWsMEsUpc4taT+UwQRwtILNlznhnCFpV4+fgfWK+ogJ7Epynn oGqUJCYtPccK0asl8eXHPjYI21pi9rONjBC2osSU7ofggOAVEJQ4OfMJywRGiVlI1s1C0j4L SfssJO2zkLQvYGRdxchRWpxalptuZLCJERizxyTYdHcw7nlpeYhRgINRiYd3wQqOECHWxLLi ytxDjNIcLErivLNq5wULCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYHRe+jhF+sT6q9LrxA+V zd5ow52XlG++2FvqUoCg9EwR41fP206JhGcahT15ZjmLj4Fz2kKzo1zTD6lvT9O/8WjN2YSV fxubFmzLm5r6a3229xSHGV7vuVet+qW75O/21illZ/64XdCXLXMs2D/3Ube76qJvGry7dRYa XWj+6xIWl9rIG82kI6TEUpyRaKjFXFScCADTuUykugIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Krf3LxZsEojEQti0j5OxGrISfhM
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Sep 2014 16:44:34 -0000

Hi,

I support Acee’s comments.

Cheers,
Jeff




-----Original Message-----
From: "Acee Lindem   (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>et>, Dhruv Dhody
<dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>om>, "hannes@juniper.net" <hannes@juniper.net>et>, Dhruv
Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

>Speaking as WG member:
>
> I agree with using capability bits for whether or not a OSPF router can
>support something and administrative tags for policy. I don¹t think we
>should have well-known tags and am not really even in favor of reserving a
>range just in case we need them.
>Thanks,
>Acee 
>
>On 9/4/14, 2:18 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>>My preference would be to use Capability bits/new TLV for well known
>>applications and
>>Using node-tags for config/policy driven generic applications.
>>
>>That said there is no-harm in reserving a range of tags in this document
>>and mentioning it's for "future" use.
>>
>>Rgds
>>shraddha
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM
>>To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody
>>Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of
>>draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
>>
>>Hi Hannes, 
>>
>>> |
>>> | > (2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is
>>> | > required to
>>> store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.
>>> | >
>>> | > <Shraddha> It's mentioned in the section 4.2 that no well known
>>> | > tag
>>> values will be defined by this document.
>>> | >
>>> | Since in the mailing list there is a discussion about possibility of
>>> | having well known tag value assigned by IANA. This document should
>>> | clarify (based on WG consensus) if admin tags can be assigned by
>>> | IANA in future documents or not. And if the answer is yes, a
>>> | suitable range should be set to avoid conflict.
>>> 
>>> i have no concerns with that -
>>> however peter seems in favor of using CAP Bits for well-known
>>> applications;
>>> 
>>> would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that.
>>
>>FWIW I prefer CAP bits as well and yes! it would interesting to hear from
>>others! 
>>
>>Dhruv
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSPF mailing list
>>OSPF@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSPF mailing list
>>OSPF@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf