IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 03 September 2014 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 29F7F1A033E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 EGCL85KGttff for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80B551A0331 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so9660579iec.40 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9NzEzTsDK9G71ey+a0m3AmBcHmBd8rLJ25QorBQ8oVA=; b=jTURBrCXV7Pmxb5ZBVqzsWjuypWc+CeXiSi8qRp3wvjnxpUEsUkWmkWWe+GCvNckbb zRATZKsG1qv+rX5oQkRGLeTxc9UjYcqkclFd2+bU2qq+XIfTewKajDUJkgxu+Gt1FrzX aLzoE2vfjjP1wGNeP+zkmwYR3GuRfM0PoFsvfc6J+IobmkMwqsPgfP4sSOTLQcWKXWDs i39B3DRlIHkzrFtPDYVYkIXmcu2OWNSKwkQX22cjvbRjhykYB0SW4dctXAIDck9rSHXT ZmLTaqAkkfXEAxs0OEOJuflPoPTAwLo3OucpUT2HvnW4zzqeulEo+ep29BuFYsr0hhHS EDlQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.79.135 with SMTP id zq7mr23710758icb.33.1409753398875; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com> <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:39:58 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4p61d8LtCdqAbBfQyrpLpg20m8Q
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/pyXF_Ha2JH9EwpMimurilF8IwtA
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 14:10:01 -0000

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.

Dhruv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email