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

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 15:52 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 50D0D1B2F5A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 ZO8slKki353u for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3521B2F3B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 526A422CB98; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:52:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.57]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3014B238059; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:52:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::787e:db0c:23c4:71b3%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:52:50 +0200
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>, 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//9f34AA4Lt0A///IZ4A=
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:52:50 +0000
Message-ID: <23963_1437493971_55AE6AD3_23963_745_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A33EC@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> <etPan.55ae5784.52673c74.36f@corretto.local>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.55ae5784.52673c74.36f@corretto.local>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.7.16.85415
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zkV312GR4aPRaUYnJWY9IXD6b_g>
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:52:55 -0000

Sure ...

In the current version of the doc, option A is : single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag (it's only related to IGP tags in the draft)

So I would be in favor of option C :) (slight variation of option A) which is really single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag, or some purely local ‘colour’ attribute.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:rjs@rob.sh] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 16:30
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Jeffrey Haas
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

 
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


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.