Hi Acee, I (as a co-author) feel this draft describes a useful approach for local applications to flood non-standard parameters opaquely and therefore the OSPF WG should work on it.
Best regards, Xiaohu (Tiger) > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:29 AM > To: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs > (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt) > > 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, > 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
