Hi, I support Acee’s comments.
Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM To: Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag >Speaking as WG member: > > I agree with using capability bits for whether or not a OSPF router can >support something and administrative tags for policy. I don¹t think we >should have well-known tags and am not really even in favor of reserving a >range just in case we need them. >Thanks, >Acee > >On 9/4/14, 2:18 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>My preference would be to use Capability bits/new TLV for well known >>applications and >>Using node-tags for config/policy driven generic applications. >> >>That said there is no-harm in reserving a range of tags in this document >>and mentioning it's for "future" use. >> >>Rgds >>shraddha >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody >>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM >>To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody >>Cc: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of >>draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag >> >>Hi Hannes, >> >>> | >>> | > (2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is >>> | > required to >>> store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values. >>> | > >>> | > <Shraddha> It's mentioned in the section 4.2 that no well known >>> | > tag >>> values will be defined by this document. >>> | > >>> | Since in the mailing list there is a discussion about possibility of >>> | having well known tag value assigned by IANA. This document should >>> | clarify (based on WG consensus) if admin tags can be assigned by >>> | IANA in future documents or not. And if the answer is yes, a >>> | suitable range should be set to avoid conflict. >>> >>> i have no concerns with that - >>> however peter seems in favor of using CAP Bits for well-known >>> applications; >>> >>> would be interesting to hear others' opinion on that. >> >>FWIW I prefer CAP bits as well and yes! it would interesting to hear from >>others! >> >>Dhruv >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OSPF mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OSPF mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
