Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92C61A01AA for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 PUJaOqMHIhJv for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224D31A01A5 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2172; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409865794; x=1411075394; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=TqQOiOyflR/B3EWcSN7ubJQFr4MlCOcOxzAolEK0wPs=; b=BhILHxvEopHafDCFazQd1AoLxp5HcwKOVoc2Z3vspFaTYtYGNfwSh3GL s+bSXEaqcv3GcYAAtgiZe26pUFRTC2l0QiCA9AqZKPrsnxM+YqJOLjEKs QhvJLqa2uQUx9aCPZkrp2alyfLmqAfD48cjrZFv1TKXG5/QY3smKinr+S E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkoFAGXXCFStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgw1TVwTIHgqHTAGBChZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCBEEAQEoBycLFAkIAgQBDQWIQg29PQETBI8iKwcGhEYFiniGRosulSKDYWyBSIEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,468,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="352700194"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2014 21:23:13 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s84LND4O017977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:23:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:23:13 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvpdOaAgAXeGICAAID8AIAACf2AgADYjgCAAPVZAP//8GyA
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:23:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com> <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com> <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865DC895@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <ab163b1c2bb84fd49a20231d45a21026@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <ab163b1c2bb84fd49a20231d45a21026@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <38F73DE3F498434593884698D87D1CC0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/hZaaCxtDcXLSHSeBlgvlWBiQowY
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Sep 2014 21:23:15 -0000

Speaking as WG member:

 I agree with using capability bits for whether or not a OSPF router can
support something and administrative tags for policy. I don¹t think we
should have well-known tags and am not really even in favor of reserving a
range just in case we need them.
Thanks,
Acee 

On 9/4/14, 2:18 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote:

>My preference would be to use Capability bits/new TLV for well known
>applications and
>Using node-tags for config/policy driven generic applications.
>
>That said there is no-harm in reserving a range of tags in this document
>and mentioning it's for "future" use.
>
>Rgds
>shraddha
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM
>To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody
>Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of
>draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
>
>Hi Hannes, 
>
>> |
>> | > (2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is
>> | > required to
>> store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.
>> | >
>> | > <Shraddha> It's mentioned in the section 4.2 that no well known
>> | > tag
>> values will be defined by this document.
>> | >
>> | Since in the mailing list there is a discussion about possibility of
>> | having well known tag value assigned by IANA. This document should
>> | clarify (based on WG consensus) if admin tags can be assigned by
>> | IANA in future documents or not. And if the answer is yes, a
>> | suitable range should be set to avoid conflict.
>> 
>> i have no concerns with that -
>> however peter seems in favor of using CAP Bits for well-known
>> applications;
>> 
>> would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that.
>
>FWIW I prefer CAP bits as well and yes! it would interesting to hear from
>others! 
>
>Dhruv
>
>_______________________________________________
>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