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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 03 September 2014 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 C06BC1A0055 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 bUd58Nz_QRWo for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124401A86ED for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=703; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409732447; x=1410942047; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E7qO/yn7F59J3FEIziwvBdMaxyxA37zD5mFVPMuFWVI=; b=LNDH+KMuigC8pTWd9GRNI9fZHv6G3StUxSZH3ZiXrmdOnBdqws5R693m 0CqJ8dy6vowBeK+PeEGa5cX1kKhMtbooRGSCNmc/aBDp5F16SDlGSgHw4 +CWWugC+v1s+LtzOrtZfxVAUO7z2AutqSAe80dZlBnEqXzDMKz+AvwiKv o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEACzOBlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABahDfQEgGBI3eEAwEBAQMBMgEFQAEQCw4KCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYNAQUCAQGINgi9OQEXj00HhEwBBJxchzeNZ4NjOy+CTwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,455,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="159518028"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 08:20:45 +0000
Received: from [10.55.51.206] (ams-ppsenak-87113.cisco.com [10.55.51.206]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s838Kjr6017787; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:20:45 GMT
Message-ID: <5406CF5D.7040002@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:20:45 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com> <D022049C.2295%acee@cisco.com> <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <FC891597-3AAA-498C-BA2A-179BFD0D77EC@rob.sh> <5406CD9D.2070905@cisco.com> <9F21D1DE-3DF8-4F5D-81AD-B105FA94CD49@rob.sh>
In-Reply-To: <9F21D1DE-3DF8-4F5D-81AD-B105FA94CD49@rob.sh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/rx6kgD3KOBxbk8ypu0vSookEBKM
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 08:21:30 -0000

Hi Rob,

On 9/3/14 10:16 , Rob Shakir wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 3 Sep 2014, at 09:13, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>> As per the above, I do not think that this mechanism replaces any capability, it just gives an operator a means to be more granular than the binary “supported”/“not supported” view that a flag indicating capabilities does.
>>
>> I understand. My point was that admin tags should not be used in cases where only a binary capability is signaled.
>
> ACK, I completely agree. Perhaps we should add something into the draft that the admin-tag should not be used for such a purpose.

I would certainly appreciate that.

thanks,
Peter

>
> Cheers,
> r.
>