[OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 13 October 2015 14:21 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@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 B5BA41B31E5; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 8QJ483BV_uiI; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85221B31BD; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.5.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151013142127.29680.19611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:21:27 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/otY5nJjRXt4JWQFBDjviOL1AozY>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:21:29 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3.2. (Elements of procedure) says that the "interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain of a particular network operator", which makes them opaque and obviously locally significant. I then have an issue with the following text, which tries to (using rfc2119 keywords) specify how to interpret the tags, which doesn't make sense to me given the text above: Each tag MUST be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be used in policy to perform a policy action. Tags carried by the administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent characteristics of a node. The administrative tag list within the TLV MUST be considered an unordered list. Whilst policies may be implemented based on the presence of multiple tags (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present), they MUST NOT be reliant upon the order of the tags (i.e., all policies should be considered commutative operations, such that tag A preceding or following tag B does not change their outcome). To avoid incomplete or inconsistent interpretations of the per-node administrative tags the same tag value MUST NOT be advertised by a router in RI LSAs of different scopes. The same tag MAY be advertised in multiple RI LSAs of the same scope, for example, OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) may advertise the same tag in area-scope RI LSAs in multiple areas connected to the ABR. . . . Being part of the RI LSA, the per-node administrative tag TLV must be reasonably small and stable. In particular, but not limited to, implementations supporting the per-node administrative tags MUST NOT tie advertised tags to changes in the network topology (both within and outside the OSPF domain) or reachability of routes. . . . instances of the RI LSA. The node administrative tags associated with a node that originates tags for the purpose of any computation or processing at a receiving node SHOULD be a superset of node administrative tags from all the TLVs in all the received RI LSA instances originated by that node.When an RI LSA is received that changes the set of tags applicable to any originating node, a receiving node MUST repeat any computation or processing that is based on those administrative tags. If the tags are opaque, I don't think that anything can be mandated as to how they are interpreted or what they're used for. That is the point I want to talk about with this DISCUSS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Related to the DISCUSS: Section 3.2 says that the "meaning of the Node administrative tags is generally opaque to OSPF", are there cases where the meaning is not opaque? Even if the application is well known there is no indication that the tag is not opaque. Yes, this is a nit with the word "generally". All the references related to rfc4970 should be changed to draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.
- [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Anil Kumar S N
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Shraddha Hegde