Re: [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt)

Hi Tiger, Uma, 

I agree - I just don’t want this to evolve into a standard way to
circumvent standardization of various router parameters ;^). Even if there
is no way to prevent a vendor for using the mechanism for this purpose, we
don’t want to endorse this by claiming it as a use case.

Note that the local application use case ties nicely to the transport
instance draft 
(https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-11.txt).
Specifically, with the remote-neighbor capability, one can use an instance
only including the nodes running the local application and requiring
exchange of flooded information. In conjunction with transport instance,
I’d actually considered a similar encoding.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 10/20/15, 9:16 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>I (as a co-author) feel this draft describes a useful approach for local
>applications to flood non-standard parameters opaquely and therefore the
>OSPF WG should work on it.
>
>Best regards,
>Xiaohu (Tiger)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>(acee)
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:29 AM
>> To: OSPF WG List
>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs
>> 
>>(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt
>>)
>> 
>> This draft has been presented at two IETFs and while I don’t agree with
>>some of
>> the proposed use cases as these applications reference should, if fact,
>>be
>> standardized, I can see that the use case for local applications could
>>be
>> compelling. This is the use where OSPF provides an API for local
>>applications to
>> advertise application-specific information throughout the routing
>>domain and
>> receive the same parameters from other routers running that
>>application. Since
>> this is to support local applications generically, one could see the
>>reason to allow
>> non-standard parameters to be flooded opaquely (i.e., OSPF is used
>>solely as a
>> flooding mechanism).
>> 
>> Please take a look at the draft and indicate whether or not you feel
>>the OSPF WG
>> should work on such a solution. If there is enough interest, we will
>>adopt it as a
>> WG document.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf