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

Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com> Wed, 03 September 2014 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <asmirnov@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 476051A0650 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:23:42 -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 MVfHganZeTCf for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515C71A064D for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2568; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409772220; x=1410981820; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2eck55husW0WEW123y0A51hY5ecCS16YS6Vv32wuIrQ=; b=ieKrnpUvpsv4m0PTPiqQ1iiX+Sd573cOkgNUj+ASskUw/l4ZS+Us33h9 +VTcR4bxj22WxP9qa64kKe6vn/dTjr3FxqBvZhXd9Q6zlOFv0xnFmkJL0 b41x18Zq9Lph1ERUasCeGkfMpiMFUX5ER35KZY0+mHPs7GAs0XT25Jqu4 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArQEAOppB1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABZg2BXyEUKh0wBgSN3hAMBAQEDAQEBATU2CgEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMAYNAQUCAQGINggNvx8BEwSPTQeETAEEnF2VHoNjOy+CTwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,459,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="164836841"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 19:23:37 +0000
Received: from as-lnx.cisco.com (ams-asmirnov-8714.cisco.com [10.55.140.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s83JNZ4U020442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:23:36 GMT
Message-ID: <54076AB7.5080106@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:23:35 +0200
From: Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/lel_CxUqJUEy_uZQ3SK1zBRMKQQ
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: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:23:42 -0000

    Hi Hannes,

 > would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that.

    My opinion is that in future defining a new well-known admin tag 
value is by definition requires new IETF draft/RFC. But if new draft is 
being written then it is cleaner to define data container which suits 
the new feature best, be it new capability bit, new RI LSA TLV, new data 
in another LSA or combination of above.
    Problems with defining well-known tag values:
- It will be necessary to sacrifice a range of tag values for future 
well-known tags
- It will be necessary to define behavior of implementation receiving 
unknown tag

    Benefits of defining well-known tags vs. defining in future new TLVs 
for features as needed:
- Well, I can't think of any.

So my opinion is that there should be no well-known tags (neither in WG 
nor internally to an implementation) and tag values should have meaning 
in the context of policy of a particular network. Very much like there 
are no well-known values for tags attached to external LSAs.

Anton


On 09/03/2014 04:45 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi dhruv,
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:39:58PM +0530, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> | Hi Shraddha,
> |
> | Thanks for your reply, snipping to the open point...
> |
> | > Also, it should be stated
> | > - if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed.
> | >
> | > <Shraddha>More than one instance of the TLV can be added in same RI-LSA or in a multiple instance as defined
> | >                        In  draft-acee-ospf-rfc4970bis-00.txt
> | >
> | Okay, text may be added to reflect this.
> |
> | > (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.
>
> /hannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>