IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Removal of MOSPF from OSPFv3

Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Mon, 06 August 2007 22:37 UTC

Return-path: <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBCL-0006KK-AG; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:13 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBCJ-0006KA-VC for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:12 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBCJ-0007n9-KK for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:11 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 15:37:11 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAOI/t0arR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,226,1183359600"; d="scan'208"; a="195377768:sNHT28090404"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l76MbAJb031739; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:37:10 -0700
Received: from [192.168.100.205] (rtp-ruwhite-vpn13.cisco.com [10.82.175.126]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id l76Mb9Vp005416; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:37:10 GMT
Message-ID: <46B7A291.9000601@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:05 -0400
From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Removal of MOSPF from OSPFv3
References: <66A3A59B-F3DA-437C-9107-67C36A4B93F7@redback.com> <4B7DAC3FEFD35D4A96BDD011699050140A4245F9@zrtphxm1.corp.nortel.com> <93E269EB-87EB-4B6F-B212-B3E15C049B55@redback.com> <46B21BEF.F72A2FB2@earthlink.net> <D6ACB2DD-BBB5-44FA-9B41-B7B4FB594810@redback.com> <46B25A86.72B967B9@earthlink.net> <46B2D4AC.9080608@teamlog.com> <46B2DE57.8090402@cisco.com> <7EA6C521-AA32-4E8E-8196-E28BC38E9F42@redback.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EA6C521-AA32-4E8E-8196-E28BC38E9F42@redback.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1166; t=1186439831; x=1187303831; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20Removal=20of=20MOSPF=20from=20OSPFv3 |Sender:=20; bh=Cv5wsdhOoU63WTf90clXNo1NF8ldOz02e/G+9bd4zdc=; b=R7F1tRzHPUJX4UNZ5i7c0P1IHpWIZ+lR6CrZXpk1Dy10jXFerwdg3DorKTBa63FQ55LOGUTm o3OYaXsPkMx6JZr+DLkOqHBu9cpPVa8Mw4fwbJU7o9Zmq5aLt2QV6tBQvwGSh9NVnSdWvqhYSb ZEHOy+fjqw3k4GHkP8jBDUUjo=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> I couldn't agree more with Anton. Once you implement OSPFv3, you can
> bring it forward as an experimental RFC and specify it completely (not
> just the few reserved bits as we have today).
> 
> Also, I don't think the prospect of something that someone might
> implement or even intends to implement is enough to influence the
> standard. The original OSPFv3 document has been around since 1999 so
> there has been an ample gestation period for MOSPFv3 implementations.

I would support this action, as well.... It's fine to remove it for the
moment, and if someone comes forward with a full implementation, then we
can consider making it a separate document. This isn't about deprecating
it, just separating it, so the other docs can be simplified somewhat,
and removing the partial stuff out of the docs.

:-)

Russ

- --
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGt6KRER27sUhU9OQRAuXvAKCxK2wpeGc0RLuOFKq95pfZbOrCcwCg/DqU
VC2vNqtq1RSJ6t05sJ7RReU=
=sMVJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email