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

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 05 September 2014 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 57A621A045D for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 vQ51kEnn8t-E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38A9F1A0460 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJC09640; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:38:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:37:21 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.204]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:37:16 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPxFE0GbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvuccKAgACA+wCAAAn+gIAA2I4AgAD1WQCAADN8AIAAa4uAgAC1QRA=
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:37:16 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AD6CF@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.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> <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6FB3ZLMLPUKPpCmUrcgGwJkbUE7ZDPvPmufUy7OQ8dog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6FB3ZLMLPUKPpCmUrcgGwJkbUE7ZDPvPmufUy7OQ8dog@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AD6CFNKGEML512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/loftG4M90Xjxkj-nspBMFXcUkVo
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: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:38:12 -0000

+1

Best regards,
Xiaohu

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:48 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee)
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
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)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> 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" <shraddha@juniper.net<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf