IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 653421B2C49; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 CGqVG3omhx9S; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3DA1B2C43; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1504; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445005941; x=1446215541; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=UsQ4IBmMnWdnF/Jm320KLj+60cSXbDXL/4wia6W9OE0=; b=PHVNojOchQgdKF9JtMowt/z3ZWmc9zjqNdEx0+gZ+prGKE6OS6e4Ztqo UaYyxCstCe4ji9B2DaDTp5htuf8fFVfXATSQHY20VXHM+6aOwSYTij9FV 7JslQCGEgFJRNReYkOxHck/vN7j2Xtb79p/REcHC3g076mO8AX6vfcIst I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWAgDxCSFW/51dJa1dgyaBQga5RoQhAQ2BWYYeAhyBFTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCcBAQQjEUUQAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYgusBaTNgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReBIopShFoYGweCaYFFAQSWHQGNGoFYlkmDbgEfAQFCghEdFoE/cYRhgQYBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,689,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="36380429"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9GEWFs9000884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:32:16 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:31:59 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:31:59 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRBcJvLL/ypjzyUkSUc2T68+cxGJ5sUYCAgAAuTQCAAbA8AP//5uGAgABXaoCAABZCgIAAAQmA//++nIA=
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:31:59 +0000
Message-ID: <D24681AA.36A15%acee@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>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.5621091b.7b9078ae.ae6d@jivecommunications.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1137B8E6EA21D244B9EE8BA592C45C0E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/yuBpboiv62cjNRB6BUnAVhZSe-4>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@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 14:32:23 -0000

Hi Rob, Alvaro, 

This is a great discussion! It is unfortunate that it did not occur
earlier on the OSPF WG list. I’d like to determine how we can solicit more
discussion earlier in the process. See one inline below…

On 10/16/15, 10:26 AM, "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:

>
>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).

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.

Thanks,
Acee 



>
>Kind regards,
>r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email