Hi Acee, Thanks very much for reading through and pulling out the relevant questions. I'd like to see this conversation resolve quickly.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Shraddha, > > I’ve read through this discussion and I’m wondering why we just can’t > remove this normative text with respect to the interpretation of OSPF Node > Admin tags? > > 1. Since the tags are advertised by a single node, why is do they have > to be unordered? It seems there should be a reason for this even if this > semantic is retained. > I can understand this restriction in terms of implementation complexity & assumptions. A router that receives the tag list might want to store them in numerical order or such for easier searching. If the tag order matters, there can be rather different requirements in terms of how the listener uses the information. > 2. Why can’t they be advertised in multiple flooding scopes? There > could be one set of tags applicable at the area scope and another > applicable at the AS wide scope. > I agree that I don't see implementation complexity logic driving this. Perhaps it allows for storing tags per device in a flat structure instead of requiring that they are stored per area? Regardless, this feels like it has more impact on operational complexity of having to define the same meaning for different tags for different areas. Regards, Alia > In essence, since the tags are purely opaque, it seems you could simply > remove the last 2-3 paragraphs of section 3.2.1 and the last paragraph of > section 3.2.2 as these seem to be rather arbitrary restrictions. > > Thanks, > Acee > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
