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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

+1

Best regards,
Xiaohu

From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:48 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag


I agree with Acee, it is cleaner to keep admin tags only for private use, never to be allocated by IANA.

Dhruv
On Sep 5, 2014 5:23 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM
>To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody
>Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>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
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf