+1 Best regards, Xiaohu
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:48 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag I agree with Acee, it is cleaner to keep admin tags only for private use, never to be allocated by IANA. Dhruv On Sep 5, 2014 5:23 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: 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" <shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>> 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:ospf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org>] On >Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody >Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:11 AM >To: Hannes Gredler; Dhruv Dhody >Cc: ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org> >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 >OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
