Re: [OSPF] Removal of MOSPF from OSPFv3

Erblichs <erblichs@earthlink.net> Mon, 06 August 2007 22:59 UTC

Return-path: <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBXw-0002q1-Ij; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:59:32 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBXv-0002pw-61 for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:59:31 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIBXu-0008Ai-N9 for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:59:31 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=LMkq0Hkm46jA1dkCxJ1P1dJQY13m732kiGE1/yBGb01FxOXCYxkNY/wNU3jzzecu; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:X-Sender:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.164.93.68] (helo=earthlink.net) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IIBXY-0003I9-S5; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:59:09 -0400
Message-ID: <46B7A6DA.7125122E@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:55:22 -0700
From: Erblichs <erblichs@earthlink.net>
X-Sender: "Erblichs" <erblichs@earthlink.net@smtpauth.earthlink.net> (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Removal of MOSPF from OSPFv3
References: <66A3A59B-F3DA-437C-9107-67C36A4B93F7@redback.com> <4B7DAC3FEFD35D4A96BDD011699050140A4245F9@zrtphxm1.corp.nortel.com> <93E269EB-87EB-4B6F-B212-B3E15C049B55@redback.com> <46B21BEF.F72A2FB2@earthlink.net> <D6ACB2DD-BBB5-44FA-9B41-B7B4FB594810@redback.com> <46B25A86.72B967B9@earthlink.net> <46B2D4AC.9080608@teamlog.com> <46B2DE57.8090402@cisco.com> <7EA6C521-AA32-4E8E-8196-E28BC38E9F42@redback.com> <46B7A291.9000601@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 074f60c55517ea841aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7938eb914b56599d056643197ebaff94f6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.164.93.68
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

Russ and group,

>that MOSPF for  
>OSPFv3 has been deprecated and the bits have been reclaimed.

     Are you sure that this isn't about deprecating it?
     
     Ok, now what do you do with 100s of documents outside
     of this RFC that says the bits are used for MOSPF?

     Group, no one needs to implement MOSPF for v3, just that
     vendors have to believe that if someone did impliment it,
     THEN they would be using those bits..

     That makes those bits UN-USEABLE for anything else.

	Mitchell Erblich
	-----------------



	

Russ White wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> > I couldn't agree more with Anton. Once you implement OSPFv3, you can
> > bring it forward as an experimental RFC and specify it completely (not
> > just the few reserved bits as we have today).
> >
> > Also, I don't think the prospect of something that someone might
> > implement or even intends to implement is enough to influence the
> > standard. The original OSPFv3 document has been around since 1999 so
> > there has been an ample gestation period for MOSPFv3 implementations.
> 
> I would support this action, as well.... It's fine to remove it for the
> moment, and if someone comes forward with a full implementation, then we
> can consider making it a separate document. This isn't about deprecating
> it, just separating it, so the other docs can be simplified somewhat,
> and removing the partial stuff out of the docs.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Russ
> 
> - --
> riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFGt6KRER27sUhU9OQRAuXvAKCxK2wpeGc0RLuOFKq95pfZbOrCcwCg/DqU
> VC2vNqtq1RSJ6t05sJ7RReU=
> =sMVJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf