Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

prz <prz@zeta2.ch> Thu, 17 March 2016 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <prz@zeta2.ch>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE69D12D644 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 fOJ_JkN6L9EP for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zeta2.ch (zux172-086.adsl.green.ch [80.254.172.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7392912D614 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.zeta2.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: prz) by zeta2.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D9E5F2166C; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:29:44 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:44 -0700
From: prz <prz@zeta2.ch>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com> <e1c1685f2856424c939bfbea4a5d90a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3fc89c87056187cfa0908a07ed4c9850@zeta2.ch>
X-Sender: prz@zeta2.ch
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.4.2
X-MailScanner-ID: D9E5F2166C.A46DA
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
X-MailScanner-From: prz@zeta2.ch
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/cz1ykp1VWjqhhsyjOt7d6sRjsSM>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:29:53 -0000

 +1 to Peter's, Les's opinion here (as individual, no hat, not even a 
 surgical mask, Acee ;-) ...

 --- tony


 On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:55 +0100, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> 
 wrote:
> I agree with Les and share the same concerns.
>
> Peter
>
> On 3/17/16 05:40 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>> My opinion of the draft has not changed.
>>
>> It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information 
>> - which is not something the protocol should be used to do.
>> Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of 
>> the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft 
>> revision states:
>>
>> " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to 
>> OSPF
>>     and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
>>     configuration.  "
>>
>> How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.
>>
>> IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request.
>> RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic 
>> container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an 
>> application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be 
>> assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue.
>> GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised 
>> by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 
>> 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information 
>> flooding on the performance of the routing protocol.
>>
>> Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.
>>
>>     Les
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>> (acee)
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
>>> To: OSPF WG List
>>> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs 
>>> for Agile
>>> Service Deployment"
>>>
>>> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it 
>>> seems like a
>>> useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF 
>>> and user
>>> and third-party applications to convey application-specific 
>>> information
>>> learned from other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already 
>>> been
>>> envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this 
>>> draft
>>> before March 31st, 2016.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf