Re: [OSPF] Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags

Alia Atlas <> Sat, 07 November 2015 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1311AC3F8 for <>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 08:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3T7WlplWxZ_m for <>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 08:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29FDE1AC3FD for <>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 08:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbza9 with SMTP id za9so114548473obb.1 for <>; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:59:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wK2s65oJnrI27mqz33tBRPvawRLY/3WcUniylPoEUXs=; b=H9fSdmkGRs2RGltPnS8cNYEYulzu4/KCojJxxPZNymoid2My/E+gIPGj+yr/Otna5Y gpoV8pjQ6wEZ1fT5YmyYljVDVQuYZv3jC1AS6A7yjhxtyf8hKpxj5EDRjQpCYoRzgS9o OawI/Nj35c//bYCX1wWOYTDgJFpRoag8qoEOGOeuHMnTU4U6xkClcWbAgmGoD4SBHHHU UT1mXO+B/NsxfV5e4LbbWOxYOCztzvi0ZcLFAHkoEz2jmec7JWKdAC7oKlJi1jAVPY7/ mdp4rCxiKay49qc4DX3XhBS+EzJTjf7f3p+09n0TguShF8uHh1Ki+89+pV72vaelTyKP DWjQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id br3mr11609163obb.56.1446915566555; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:59:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 08:59:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:59:26 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a09725d595a0523f6483b"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>, OSPF ADs <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:59:31 -0000

Hi Acee,

Thanks very much for reading through and pulling out the relevant questions.
I'd like to see this conversation resolve quickly.

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <> wrote:

> 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.

I can understand this restriction in terms of implementation complexity &
assumptions.  A router that receives the tag list might want to store them
numerical order or such for easier searching.  If the tag order matters,
can be rather different requirements in terms of how the listener uses the

>    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.

I agree that I don't see implementation complexity logic driving this.
it allows for storing tags per device in a flat structure instead of
requiring that
they are stored per area?

Regardless, this feels like it has more impact on operational complexity of
having to define the same meaning for different tags for different areas.


> 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.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list