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

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I support Acee’s comments.

Cheers,
Jeff




-----Original Message-----
From: "Acee Lindem   (acee)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>, Dhruv Dhody
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Dhruv
Dhody <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM
>>To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody
>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>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
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSPF mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf