Re: [OSPF] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 12 October 2015 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 B541B1B322B; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 d-RBULX1QwD2; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D0431B3228; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.157]) by mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t9CDdD6S010940 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:39:14 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com t9CDdD6S010940
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1444657154; bh=l4EqqOS69C5kkwM3aYFlhk+iGs8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=DwxS50HRuljl1py229DrgAzbtkjEq1FUuYpkkdpdIlv2dU88TmmWjMMiST7lmuOR0 +1OaeICyb8fBWf5OBAyI7y30NXm+Md20X46pfcoalgk9Wdxk89YdTSPV+73oJUcjwQ cPA6J7+BI+jnInVxTp46ED52VE3nZZCQhdqx7IA4=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com t9CDdD6S010940
Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.19]) by maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:38:58 -0400
Received: from mxhub24.corp.emc.com (mxhub24.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.136]) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t9CDctQA029446 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:38:56 -0400
Received: from MXHUB103.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.16) by mxhub24.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:38:55 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.74]) by MXHUB103.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:38:54 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRBPLArPV3fhCLkUezaocaXeN0kJ5n29Zg
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:38:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936166BA175@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <20151012133425.11612.85728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151012133425.11612.85728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ycoQieJpPmh7kG4ED7u11sz9Kmg>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with 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: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:39:24 -0000

Benoit,

> I was initially confused by that sentence.

My understanding is that "independent characteristics" applies on a
tag-by-tag basis.  I might suggest:

	Each tag carried by the administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to
	indicate a characteristic of a node that is independent of the
	characteristics indicated by other administrative tags.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:34 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: Black, David; acee@cisco.com; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-
> tag@ietf.org; ospf-chairs@ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - "Tags carried by the
>    administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
>    characteristics of a node."
> 
> I was initially confused by that sentence.
> So there are tags carried by a different TLV than the administrative one?
> Actually, no (I checked with one of the authors).
> I would simply write:
>    "Administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
>    characteristics of a node."
> 
> This would be in line with the definition:
>    An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
>    identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.
> 
> - Router information LSA [RFC4970] can have link, area or AS
>    level flooding scope.  Choosing the flooding scope to flood the group
>    tags are defined by the policies and is a local matter.
> 
> "and is a local matter". Hopefully there is some sort of centralized
> management application that checks consistency.
>