[OSPF] H-bit Support for OSPFv2 - draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01 WG Document Adoption Poll

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 26 September 2015 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E441A1AA8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6Z5AcvvdvzX for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3E41A1A2C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=556; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443294276; x=1444503876; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Nc5zcYYucHdkjZ/As3MPECiG03gigk2C/qCoqFjDKkE=; b=DYfhL3+RAMmAYT+Rn52HjeO1cb9mO91c1UWCkbqPd2ke96DUnrmmQdmQ IHdQcl5xooPnWYw1082uhy+vJiRQ3112Q4K3sEYuA6Ba8jsnLSaroieZI R8gANpD5qN+5XeDfF0APENaF4MDtbOReJYvxOQcK5i3vepcok+1j1IC+U 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,593,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="32304025"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2015 19:04:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com []) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8QJ4WbF008744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:04:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-009.cisco.com ( by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:04:31 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ( by xch-rcd-009.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:04:31 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:04:31 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: H-bit Support for OSPFv2 - draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01 WG Document Adoption Poll
Thread-Index: AQHQ+I4sOqe7VD7MpUCLZtUUn93yZg==
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:04:30 +0000
Message-ID: <D22C6483.32EB0%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3AE80D4C3C1CFB49BA11BAFA217C71A4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ORzm9KjGFrMz4xclsc780fva1HM>
Subject: [OSPF] H-bit Support for OSPFv2 - draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01 WG Document Adoption Poll
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: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:04:37 -0000

This draft was presented in Prague and there was consensus in the room
that it was a valid use case. It provides protocol mechanisms to
absolutely prevent transit traffic for OSPFv2 Routers (RFC 6987 only
discourages transit traffic). The draft also includes assurance of
backward compatibility.

Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG