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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 05F0A1A6ED8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 Msg7m_Jpms_6 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5671A6F73 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJA98063; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 03:43:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.202) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 04:43:02 +0100
Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.229]) by szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.202]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:40:50 +0800
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvomviAgAXeGICAAID8AIAACf2AgAFeCFA=
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 03:40:48 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865DC895@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com> <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn6uo9WKEN=u_R345mpg=YPqM-E7SiEUn27mcFUHzd8kXA@mail.gmail.com> <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140903144543.GC45836@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.146.248]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/uxakbM1tt_D8Dv2MSt7WzpWyik4
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: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 03:43:07 -0000

Hi Hannes, 

> |
> | > (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.
> 
> i have no concerns with that -
> however peter seems in favor of using CAP Bits for well-known applications;
> 
> would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that.

FWIW I prefer CAP bits as well and yes! it would interesting to hear from others! 

Dhruv