[OSPF] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-08: (with COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4FA1A1A5B; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.6.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151019124203.32172.41366.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:42:03 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/p22bbtZecZda_V-wuxwYOejhKkM>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-08: (with 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: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:42:03 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-08: No Objection

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:


I am clearing my DISCUSS because we seem to be going around in circles in
my exchanges with the authors.

I still have some concerns about the normative language in section 3.2
(some of it has been updated as a result of our discussions) — I think
that some of the text is not in line with what seems to be the intent of
the extension: "…allows simplification, ease of management and control
over…policies. …node-tags can be used to express and apply
locally-defined network policies."

Specifically, I have strong concerns about the ability (or not, as
defined in the text) to flood the same tag value with different scopes,
and about potential instability caused by sources other than topology

To all this, I trust the responsible AD and hope that the WG had the
appropriate discussions, so I'm changing my ballot and not standing in
the way.