[OSPF] Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 07 November 2015 14:58 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 D4EA11B3488 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 06:58:13 -0800 (PST)
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 kF-D8adfXgvw for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 06:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BA51B347C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 06:58:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1052; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446908286; x=1448117886; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RhlZvNgmgUZLP735UCeo1sFC8/OOhIKE78BKouUsRDg=; b=Yc+OnrT6IwpOf8JfvOumMPX5duQ/HyghYMfmdYO7usCGUKjlxzoMjk5M n+VcNi+iIuDy8lttjaeE+15S/FtYUauGAAv7tUf+rpK/LuWXHn36JUHoQ aWxffa1I8W5hU1BZ68qW6o7i4K9SHbrPJ6iKaHlAl66ORR4cHerLZfoRE Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,257,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="204737144"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2015 14:58:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA7Ew4El018681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:58:05 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 09:58:04 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 09:58:04 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags
Thread-Index: AQHRGWy0NezfSgA9Q0GdYS5ndTxcnA==
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:58:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D263D3DA.3CCB9%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <90C4E1CE1BCA764BA88B6664184181CF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OhTFV9qHCl0ykahSrHrjHGcjUMg>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, OSPF ADs <ospf-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags
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, 07 Nov 2015 14:58:14 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 

I’ve read through this discussion and I’m wondering why we just can’t
remove this normative text with respect to the interpretation of OSPF Node
Admin tags?  

   1. Since the tags are advertised by a single node, why is do they have
to be unordered? It seems there should be a reason for this even if this
semantic is retained.
   2. Why can’t they be advertised in multiple flooding scopes? There
could be one set of tags applicable at the area scope and another
applicable at the AS wide scope.

In essence, since the tags are purely opaque, it seems you could simply
remove the last 2-3 paragraphs of section 3.2.1 and the last paragraph of
section 3.2.2 as these seem to be rather arbitrary restrictions.