Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Anil Kumar S N <anil.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <anil.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 7547B1B314F; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:28 -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 z2ovRqtpdHSs; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5921B3152; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padcn9 with SMTP id cn9so8665468pad.2; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4j/SIpoEn6i3y6MCWvi/6xyuGMy1jscgJgxhiNrLECY=; b=ci3hoK9cu8Oxam3yspx4BQ1cZHpAfsp1FHEIj32xMt3yUkKt3QnAzPP1lNjmy8VRBe u46NhDVLKmQeJ0oz2Afbp2bKwzMdSio6PK3Ojq4JJ8zkILfrzfUaLX6C8+Fmgr6X7KNE y1idebjU1a0aiafWy7jUT2xmYHc+visBC5Mtyeg1geKkQ1jTGwytKsUfDJehQivCx6Y2 s6wCkBgSlvZE3XNo03JeuaJMcc6D/Xc8QbbCKT9aWN5dBq/mLTh81R1r7LzQvbXFlDea q3rKMuPc66+2HsGDbRlGpT+OtU+V7TEW4l3MPTWMpcg0xE3PnNxENsN1a8mB7dFAQ23n yvWw==
X-Received: by 10.68.100.226 with SMTP id fb2mr17276453pbb.92.1445009004582; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([1.22.190.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sn9sm21973458pac.16.2015.10.16.08.23.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5621166b.29e5420a.f08a5.ffffab89@mx.google.com>
X-Google-Original-Message-ID: 051916ea-c715-4656-936a-b2a74a24717c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:53:13 +0530
In-Reply-To: <D2468413.DBF91%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20151013142127.29680.19611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381AA752314C8677284A2F5D53E0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D244F4BA.DB9E8%aretana@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381A540ECC4E6F62651BF6ED53D0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D2464C12.DBDFA%aretana@cisco.com> <etPan.5620f609.42befee7.19d1@piccolo.local> <D2467F6C.DBF6D%aretana@cisco.com> <etPan.5621091b.7b9078ae.ae6d@jivecommunications.com> <D24681AA.36A15%acee@cisco.com> <D2468413.DBF91%aretana@cisco.com>
From: Anil Kumar S N <anil.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/vl43ExleF3xv14gGcKfxA3ycp1k>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:23:28 -0000

Hi!

Even if tags are ordered we are not going to achieve much; when lsa is received on refresh interval, all received tags must be verified against tags available in lsdb. Worst case the last tag in the ordered list is missing. So Ordering is not going to help m
uch.

I do feel tags can be unordered.

With regards 
Anil S N

Sent from my Cyanogen phone

On Oct 16, 2015 8:09 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/16/15, 10:31 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: 
>
> Hi! 
>
> >This is a great discussion! It is unfortunate that it did not occur 
> >earlier on the OSPF WG list. 
>
> Couldn't agree more! :-) 
>
> . . . 
> >On 10/16/15, 10:26 AM, "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> wrote: 
> > 
> >>. . . 
> >>I prefer leaving "MUST be considered unordered² in the document, I 
> >>currently cannot envisage any use cases that would need to consider 
> >>ordering (in general, I think this can be dealt with by creating a new 
> >>tag). 
> > 
> >In thinking about this and case of nondeterministic behavior with varying 
> >implementation ordering, I think we should keep it as unordered and 
> >discourage the creation of policies that are sensitive to ordering. 
>
> Ok..that's fine with me. 
>
> Thanks! 
>
> Alvaro. 
>
> _______________________________________________ 
> OSPF mailing list 
> OSPF@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf