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

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Fri, 16 October 2015 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
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 CC8541B2C2F; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Fiem7taEFuzh; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1643A1B2C2D; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [199.87.120.126] (helo=jivecommunications.com) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1Zn5xR-0001Lb-NU; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:26:09 +0100
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:26:35 -0600
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <etPan.5621091b.7b9078ae.ae6d@jivecommunications.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2467F6C.DBF6D%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>
X-Mailer: Airmail Beta (331)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/wjar06hyHK9Ds-ALmUAamqMOzMA>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad=40ietf.org?=" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?ospf=40ietf.org?=" <ospf@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd=40ietf.org?=" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag=40ietf.org?=" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?ospf-chairs=40ietf.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 14:26:33 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

On October 16, 2015 at 08:23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) (aretana@cisco.com) wrote:
> Are you advocating for the draft to specify an ordering scheme, or at just
> leaving it at "MUST be considered unordered"? Your text below says one or
> the other, just wondering about preference.

I prefer leaving "MUST be considered unordered” 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).

Kind regards,
r.