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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 September 2014 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.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 EAC551A03C9 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 O9_Fa2DnCcly for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59CAA1A03D3 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r10so2357156igi.4 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7V2FcBx89offNxRIPM5vr9xLnR6pfcJBba8cY1KcZnc=; b=V7iw0m4tanhLCBkOQyGKjqaI30FCO47Lg90PeyKZ37uEuHDihw0sjqUUjuiWtWa8Si 9/AyvZev5tR9fVIvHFOzqMPdSPqK8oZoW9wTmdMJV4F/d23uZzybZGoP8lGnSD6Xvosi oaZ/9M++eeG3B29vrVxauHGZ7iIYgBTJQpOQT2BGaYZYLQFwuBHfQWiU+ZzgOUgfI6Sn rWpN93sdHZw2CrS6Ana8k65Oyg3Xi0QBkrH1qHbJKzHC417kOWlExKf5F7p31X15i9hw NP6vBYOpms0ZpGVU3C/OwGQq87P3UEDx+dylEaoqAwt6RW4tIs3xuUhvCDPvT8oBCfPe 2Hzg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.167.196 with SMTP id nf4mr11153157icc.22.1409888887433; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.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> <ab163b1c2bb84fd49a20231d45a21026@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D02E4FDC.2877%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:18:07 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6FB3ZLMLPUKPpCmUrcgGwJkbUE7ZDPvPmufUy7OQ8dog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2d6764efef70502495668
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/xbl1eP7SZ1TJfNHhk1nbSlHKIqM
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: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 03:48:11 -0000

I agree with Acee, it is cleaner to keep admin tags only for private use,
never to be allocated by IANA.

Dhruv
 On Sep 5, 2014 5:23 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Speaking as WG member:
>
>  I agree with using capability bits for whether or not a OSPF router can
> support something and administrative tags for policy. I don¹t think we
> should have well-known tags and am not really even in favor of reserving a
> range just in case we need them.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 9/4/14, 2:18 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OSPF mailing list
> >OSPF@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>