IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Thu, 04 September 2014 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
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 8A7071A010A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 DbkP1OKq9oGQ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDB281A0125 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) by BN1PR05MB437.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:18:58 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.219]) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.219]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.018; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:18:57 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, 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: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvpIRSAgAXa+UCAAIQbAIAACf2AgADYjgCAAPQqEA==
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:18:56 +0000
Message-ID: <ab163b1c2bb84fd49a20231d45a21026@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.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> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865DC895@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B865DC895@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.18]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0324C2C0E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(13464003)(51704005)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(21056001)(87936001)(83072002)(99396002)(76482001)(76176999)(93886004)(74316001)(50986999)(33646002)(77982001)(106116001)(85852003)(2656002)(1941001)(95666004)(46102001)(20776003)(85306004)(99286002)(76576001)(90102001)(101416001)(74662001)(66066001)(81542001)(54356999)(80022001)(31966008)(4396001)(108616004)(19580405001)(81342001)(79102001)(19580395003)(15975445006)(64706001)(77096002)(86362001)(83322001)(74502001)(105586002)(230783001)(92566001)(106356001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB437; H:BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/wA3sGPWf-39yRGvcF-Z_WOo7TfI
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 18:19:09 -0000

My preference would be to use Capability bits/new TLV for well known applications and
Using node-tags for config/policy driven generic applications. 

That said there is no-harm in reserving a range of tags in this document and mentioning it's for "future" use.

Rgds
shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM
To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

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

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email