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

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Wed, 03 September 2014 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
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 B11741A702A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 RQ5a62h4VXgI for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8F11A00DD for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [86.180.125.226] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1XP5je-0004i6-Ry; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:16:10 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
In-Reply-To: <5406CD9D.2070905@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:16:05 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F21D1DE-3DF8-4F5D-81AD-B105FA94CD49@rob.sh>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com> <D022049C.2295%acee@cisco.com> <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <FC891597-3AAA-498C-BA2A-179BFD0D77EC@rob.sh> <5406CD9D.2070905@cisco.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/RVotcllmyw0uo86wnGnZMmzgefM
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
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: <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: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:18:00 -0000

Hi Peter,

On 3 Sep 2014, at 09:13, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

>> As per the above, I do not think that this mechanism replaces any capability, it just gives an operator a means to be more granular than the binary “supported”/“not supported” view that a flag indicating capabilities does.
> 
> I understand. My point was that admin tags should not be used in cases where only a binary capability is signaled.

ACK, I completely agree. Perhaps we should add something into the draft that the admin-tag should not be used for such a purpose.

Cheers,
r.