Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D6812D561 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IidDiLQvrlD5 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.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 613C312D601 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79216d00000767f-1e-57071ab6592c
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 35.4C.30335.6BA17075; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 04:43:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB106.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.123]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:09:49 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
To: prz <prz@zeta2.ch>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP59dC0kggAByIYCAAMx3AIAhPlUA
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:09:48 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A604691520086358001503@eusaamb106.ericsson.se>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com> <e1c1685f2856424c939bfbea4a5d90a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com> <3fc89c87056187cfa0908a07ed4c9850@zeta2.ch>
In-Reply-To: <3fc89c87056187cfa0908a07ed4c9850@zeta2.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonXHebFHu4Qd8FNYuWe/fYLXbsbmez uNf1mNWB2WPK742sHkuW/GTy+LHsD3MAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxpP+PWwFD9QqDj3ZzNbA +EC1i5GTQ0LARKL1/Vp2CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGSUWrl3CBOEsY5RY++UtC0gVm4CexMep P8E6RAQsJGbe/csEYjMLKEhcu3gLqJuDQ1ggVWLCGWuIkjSJL1tnMIKERQTcJD6014CEWQRU JP4fbmEDsXkFfCXaJ85mhVi1kVHizOqjYOM5gcZPaV3GDGIzAh33/dQaqFXiEreezGeCOFpA Ysme88wQtqjEy8f/WCFsJYk5r68xg+xlFtCUWL9LH6JVUWJK90N2iL2CEidnPmGZwCg2C8nU WQgds5B0zELSsYCRZRUjR2lxQU5uupHBJkZg1ByTYNPdwXh/uuchRgEORiUe3gUC7OFCrIll xZW5hxglOJiVRHhzZYBCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGKU5WJTEeRuD/4UJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbB ZJk4OKUaGJceKvs2oUb59YXQaTYXuFpabX49OaMf1eCaWWo36UJJpZbHl4vdn1/nGNw8bVT3 e+ulrK3TJe7z3dY+UPx58fzDsfqHns6fsmwl314mr3kGGfKx6n/WlFRxHmNWZj1yrDJhhVjv 2ye8wdcNvDh1JfZZqtjNr3jCaGZwZhtn9aECzeSjSzd3aCuxFGckGmoxFxUnAgDa7bewlgIA AA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OV43oD0StKLo8qxZmI0r6f4hbbs>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 08 Apr 2016 03:09:52 -0000

Tony,  Peter,

Also  please note the following changes are made per last WG Adoption call:

1.  " Dissemination of dynamic information" Information is removed like location information for Mobile OSPF routers.	
      
2. Section 3 - Applicability has been added

3. Section 6 Last paragraph has been added clarifying information about transport instance usage.

--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of prz
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:30 PM
To: Peter Psenak
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"


 +1 to Peter's, Les's opinion here (as individual, no hat, not even a  surgical mask, Acee ;-) ...

 --- tony


 On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:55 +0100, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
 wrote:
> I agree with Les and share the same concerns.
>
> Peter
>
> On 3/17/16 05:40 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>> My opinion of the draft has not changed.
>>
>> It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information
>> - which is not something the protocol should be used to do.
>> Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of 
>> the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft 
>> revision states:
>>
>> " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to 
>> OSPF
>>     and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
>>     configuration.  "
>>
>> How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.
>>
>> IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request.
>> RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic 
>> container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an 
>> application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be 
>> assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue.
>> GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised 
>> by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC
>> 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information 
>> flooding on the performance of the routing protocol.
>>
>> Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.
>>
>>     Les
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>> (acee)
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
>>> To: OSPF WG List
>>> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs 
>>> for Agile Service Deployment"
>>>
>>> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it 
>>> seems like a useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API 
>>> between OSPF and user and third-party applications to convey 
>>> application-specific information learned from other OSPF routers. In 
>>> many respects, this has already been envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. 
>>> Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, 2016.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf