RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Mon, 20 July 2015 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268F31A898D for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 saexSeScMjxs for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA131A899D for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2EA531B81E7; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:30:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.17]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id ECEE915815E; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:29:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM24.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a1e6:3e6a:1f68:5f7e%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:29:59 +0200
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Thread-Index: AdDC3mGR5ZGZB0pXRXeVs9QL62qf/P//5TuA///X+ECAADgKAP//yjOwgABMbAD//9f34A==
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:29:58 +0000
Message-ID: <26470_1437402600_55AD05E8_26470_6250_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0D94@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <6148_1437392115_55ACDCF3_6148_2234_11_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0AC1@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <E4CCDE37-90A5-4ED5-8E85-3DAD595347C0@pfrc.org> <18735_1437394871_55ACE7B7_18735_2268_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0BB9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <AE597A9E-B8D5-4E7B-A292-6E1671BD5862@pfrc.org> <2188_1437400730_55ACFE9A_2188_4362_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0CC7@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <23933303-B805-495D-AF0E-9305AED39F0A@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <23933303-B805-495D-AF0E-9305AED39F0A@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0D94OPEXCLILMA4corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.7.20.115415
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/u4IND7Mj6hMfEb8qPgHh8oQnIjc>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:30:46 -0000

Inline

From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 16:05
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model


On Jul 20, 2015, at 3:58 PM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:

Right, each protocol has its own constraint, but do you think creating an additional generic marker will solve those constraints ? We would expect to be able to have the generic marker to protocol tag and also two protocol tags with different constraints to interact between each other (I mean for example, learning a RIP tag and copying it to ISIS or OSPF).

My thought is that by not using an element that has protocol semantics, we can free the user from worrying about them when they don't care about whether the route will or will not get redistributed into a protocol that might use it.  This is mostly to deal with your "local" property noted earlier.

[SLI] Agree, that's why I was pushing "tag" to be protocol agnostic and having only this tag and then let implementations to manage the translation to protocol tag when necessary.




-- Jeff


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.