Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Acee,

> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 4:32 PM
> 
> Hi Rob, Alvaro,
> 
> This is a great discussion! It is unfortunate that it did not occur
> earlier on the OSPF WG list. I’d like to determine how we can solicit more
> discussion earlier in the process. See one inline below…
> 
> On 10/16/15, 10:26 AM, "Rob Shakir" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi Alvaro,
> >
> >On October 16, 2015 at 08:23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> >([e-mail]) wrote:
> >> Are you advocating for the draft to specify an ordering scheme, or at
> >>just
> >> leaving it at "MUST be considered unordered"? Your text below says one
> >>or
> >> the other, just wondering about preference.
> >
> >I prefer leaving "MUST be considered unordered” in the document, I
> >currently cannot envisage any use cases that would need to consider
> >ordering (in general, I think this can be dealt with by creating a new
> >tag).
> 
> In thinking about this and case of nondeterministic behavior with varying
> implementation ordering, I think we should keep it as unordered and
> discourage the creation of policies that are sensitive to ordering.

Looks good to me.
This is also in sync with IS-IS prefix admin tag (RFC 5130), which BTW has a section about "Ordering of tags" http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5130#section-4

OSPF node tag says:
   The semantics of the tag order has no meaning.  That is, there is no
   implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain
   operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the
   ordering.


IS-IS prefix tags says:
The semantics of the tag order are implementation-dependent.  That
   is, there is no implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that
   indicates a certain operation or set of operations need be performed
   based on the order of the tags.


i.e. both are quite identical. An option would be to make then identical.

Thanks,
--Bruno 

> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >r.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.