[OSPF] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 12 October 2015 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 587491B3203; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:34:26 -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 XrKJyh6xAddL; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136A31B31FD; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151012133425.11612.85728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:34:25 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/sDZFDPBo3NeBtC9PswOpL9tPFx4>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, 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] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (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, 12 Oct 2015 13:34:26 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- "Tags carried by the
   administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
   characteristics of a node."

I was initially confused by that sentence.
So there are tags carried by a different TLV than the administrative one?
Actually, no (I checked with one of the authors).
I would simply write:
   "Administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
   characteristics of a node."

This would be in line with the definition:
   An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
   identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.

- Router information LSA [RFC4970] can have link, area or AS
   level flooding scope.  Choosing the flooding scope to flood the group
   tags are defined by the policies and is a local matter.

"and is a local matter". Hopefully there is some sort of centralized
management application that checks consistency.