IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" - draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-03

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 330AC1A1A50 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:01:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 IGR_BfVsjxWE for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA521A0211 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:01:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1032; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415034112; x=1416243712; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gAgfBRYAN2wqitDF3QruB9h0wVkKbPICt3rTC4TboNg=; b=NlFMSMAj+ycXwm1KlEevoia1vsjWOlbef1MauGX7ueqGgZelInYr3Fq7 iKidRbg/l9+YlqVPcXGc66BnO6eeXvO7cjV5j0ScsDBhZvsvflapBkyP1 IjU250ZzQwDcAkN6V8UPzQkbb+UMRwuatqzUmaTOhvz2D5K2QvJWyAS94 Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,308,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="92838175"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2014 17:01:51 +0000
Received: from [10.61.69.49] (ams3-vpn-dhcp1329.cisco.com [10.61.69.49]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA3H1oP6018557; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:01:50 GMT
Message-ID: <5457B4FE.2060505@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:01:50 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D07CF958.7433%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D07CF958.7433%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/P9QWnLD7iAj3YQcgAGDKBT4zDVc
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" - draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-03
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:01:57 -0000

On 03/11/2014 14:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> The base MRT specifications are rtgwg WG documents. Additionally, this
> document now uses the OSPFv2 link extensions that we have converged upon
> for OSPFv2 protocol extension. Hence, the chairs believe this document is
> ready for a WG adoption poll.
>
> Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG
> Document.
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
A comment that I made over on the MPLS list.

I am not convinced that MRT has the degree of maturity that we would 
normally
require for a routing protocol intended for deployment as part of a major
IGP. This is obviously a discussion that needs to happen in RTGWG.

I would therefore suggest that whilst the WG may adopt this component
draft, it needs to sequence publication behind a number of the main MRT
drafts and set the track accordingly.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email