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

Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 April 2016 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
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 E6FDE12E10A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 lNQHTa3Kvgnb for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BF112E47C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id q133so10281576oib.1 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=yHZHNLUko5p6QBvymq4+q/IgjP8TCfHC8/RP3PRiUl0=; b=T4E/9klcA3gWk+FaLLqWy8f5bBrnpXvzVb8O0ybN/Sztcf0C3WiotQYDstzF9WVBtg rKnrEaJ0nTpOorOav4FMHODiMYHLqNrKDXKbzGpdlmubFqsBuXdzFEL1awkmJQAOIls3 sdhJj4n+hRlDPOWpsr9Zeh6KIXkxLo5fAVxEe9ZdFxVUlI0q5BK7hCukBBlvSsFPJrwV pWcwcDZNjNU08lGMZX6/Ffzm8JrURx/K58KWcMttf11+76LkYbxMQ2Eddb2WbJv5qipu J2UmEb5VyzpuGEFPfNB7F7FOFcR+1vHrEy7X10/3AO5yTujnpp3JKUMkPerT/T0MOShT Wi3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=yHZHNLUko5p6QBvymq4+q/IgjP8TCfHC8/RP3PRiUl0=; b=iYK3e86tKzy17c4qz+qRvdmJOATqN7+3C7mow3upGqh8/8EnI5qQcnXTsQO46MLCPE MjfubdTsEMPpGsQ/LblPA7sAG3rj8L+WxHyGwc9oYtcCc1UHsYwACLbWhWIsXJhH5YqA TgqTiBDf4c/usDQvGe6sErc+lzBLg6N8eoNVfz8MtQ5j/34OP4XP9qvVurgZWRWAGVTW gkO0/NzV/QkBkpRLD07ytAnDOdb2tzxeKh3K/GPFt/RcMpGzVn3MLviKMMpYwSM4sa95 Jj8wS21DEb5000eZYynHvP9CvwRNG2swQgwL3YqZcxunSXL8PUApKE2VB6Ugv53/NGD/ KK/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX3MZFxNoA2wHLnmgMnqXKO8NdIxAHUxZ3OI+l7a36yX0x3slchj9K0mCrlXpWR5UTFOnw+QRo8D+mkqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.157.5.106 with SMTP id 97mr7452573otw.127.1460647443258; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.157.24.14 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D53A022@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D53A022@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:24:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG-CQxpqi1JN6BPpZXYztSz3n=vdbAuF23RgcBz5BjrXaXn61w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0479a4ff64c50530737b25
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/i-oF4uComqPWHHbj_NsdWkABsns>
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, 14 Apr 2016 15:24:13 -0000

I cannot support this draft.

As discussed in the wg last week, the best way to do this is to have  the
generic definition (genapps) in OSPF  as in ISIS. I am in the process of
reviving the ospf service distribution draft which has that purpose
embedded.

Thanks
Padma


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

> Support the WG adoption of this doc (as a co-author).
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:09 AM
> > 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
>