I cannot support this draft. As discussed in the wg last week, the best way to do this is to have the generic definition (genapps) in OSPF as in ISIS. I am in the process of reviving the ospf service distribution draft which has that purpose embedded.
Thanks Padma On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com> wrote: > Support the WG adoption of this doc (as a co-author). > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > (acee) > > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:09 AM > > To: OSPF WG List > > Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for > Agile > > Service Deployment" > > > > We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems > like a > > useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and > user and > > third-party applications to convey application-specific information > learned from > > other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already been envisioned > for OSPF > > Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, > 2016. > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
