Speaking as a WG contributor, I tend to agree as long as one envisions a flooding API for local applications. Hence, I would support this work. I don’t agree with all the use cases as I would think that TE parameters should be standardized.
Thanks, Acee On 10/19/15, 4:47 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Acee, > >I think the document describes a real and a valid use case, rather useful >when opaque data needs to be distributed in an IGP domain. >Hence support further progress. > >Cheers, >Jeff > > > > > > > >On 10/19/15, 23:29, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >>This draft has been presented at two IETFs and while I don’t agree with >>some of the proposed use cases as these applications reference should, if >>fact, be standardized, I can see that the use case for local applications >>could be compelling. This is the use where OSPF provides an API for local >>applications to advertise application-specific information throughout the >>routing domain and receive the same parameters from other routers running >>that application. Since this is to support local applications >>generically, >>one could see the reason to allow non-standard parameters to be flooded >>opaquely (i.e., OSPF is used solely as a flooding mechanism). >> >>Please take a look at the draft and indicate whether or not you feel the >>OSPF WG should work on such a solution. If there is enough interest, we >>will adopt it as a WG document. >> >>Thanks, > >Thanks! >>Acee >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OSPF mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
