Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> Mon, 25 August 2014 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
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 1904C1A037E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 30hpt_LbeXBY for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3E71A0379 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linne.localnet (31.150.3.83) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 125D5E; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:18:23 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
To: ospf@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:21:08 +0200
Message-ID: <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 6
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kwugi63Q_lZSz0gBBCATx7sySm0
Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
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: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:37 -0000

About your comments:
1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion ended off list waiting for an 
answer from a co-author

2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time

I support making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified before WG adoption, but 
thats up to the WG consensus

Regards
Karsten

Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy:


This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it.. 

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 

Regards,-Abhay



On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:


[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".     I believe, this should also be 
applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's 

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real 
use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP 
address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be 
"MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? 

Regards,-Abhay




_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org[1]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf[2] 





--------
[1] mailto:OSPF@ietf.org
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf