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

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Tue, 21 July 2015 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
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 3DC021A1A8D for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 Azvyg43-QVtV for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 439D31A6F5D for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [109.144.245.138] (helo=corretto.local) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1ZHYYm-0007z9-OZ; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:30:20 +0100
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:30:28 +0100
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Message-ID: <etPan.55ae5784.52673c74.36f@corretto.local>
In-Reply-To: <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> <26470_1437402600_55AD05E8_26470_6250_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0D94@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
X-Mailer: Airmail (303)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/z6lt2hxaQpWzFgOFmce-WV7Zjeg>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?rtgwg=40ietf.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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:30:37 -0000

 
Folks,

There’s some ambiguity in the discussion here, from my perspective:

Option A: single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag, or some ‘colour’ attribute.
Option B: multiple ‘tag’ types, a generic ‘colour’ and then per-protocol tags.

Right now, oc-policy uses option A. I can see arguments for either - but Stephane I was not clear from your view which of these you prefer - can you clarify for me please?

Thanks,
r.


On 20 July 2015 at 15:30:56, stephane.litkowski@orange.com (stephane.litkowski@orange.com(mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com)) wrote:

>  
> 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.  
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg