Hi Anton, Thanks for reading the document and bringing the subtle difference with node Admin tags. In-line ..[Uma]:
-- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: Anton Smirnov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:36 AM To: Uma Chunduri; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt Hi Uma, there is very important difference with admin tags. Admin tags have known formatting. Because of this it is possible to advertise a tag from implementation even if it doesn't support functionality which local network policy designates to the tag. [Uma]: The part which is common here is advertising information from the local Policy into the OSPF area/Domain. But in case of Self-defined TLV you are also associating and advertising certain attributes and this can also be used by an external entity to make certain decisions/derive some conclusions. This is the key. Self-defined TLV does not have fixed formatting known beforehand. So only the implementation which is aware of its internals can originate and interpret it. For this reason it is more like Experimental or Vendor-Specific Sub-TLV. [Uma]: Yes, if node which receives Self-defined TLV, and doesn't support the functionality it can't interpret it . The part what is similar is, even if Admin tag with fixed format is understood by the receiving node, which can't support the functionality can't still interpret the meaning of it. For this reason it is more like Experimental or Vendor-Specific Sub-TLV. [Uma]: I would not say "vendor" specific , rather deployment specific as interpreted and provisioned by the operator. Anton On 10/16/2014 01:30 AM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > Dear OSPF WG, > > Please see the link for the document below. > > Abstract: > This document proposes a TLV within the body of the OSPF Router > Information (RI) Opaque LSA, called Self-defined Sub-TLV Container > TLV. Here the term OSPF means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. > > Comments/Concerns/Suggestions welcome! > > -- > Uma C. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:32 PM > To: Uma Chunduri; Luis M. Contreras; Xiaohu Xu; Luis M.Contreras; > Xiaohu Xu; Uma Chunduri > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs > Revision: 00 > Title: Using Self-defined Sub-TLVs for Agile Service Deployment > Document date: 2014-10-15 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 7 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs/ > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-00 > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
