Stewart You say that this protocol is only intended to be used for the propagation of parameters needed to support the operation of the routing system but the registry you create is named Network Wide Parameter Registry which to me still carries the message that this is all embracing, not just for routing.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:23 PM > Resend with correct ISIS WG email address > > Following discussion at the last IETF, I have made a number > of changes to the text to emphasis that this protocols > is only to be used for the synchronization of parameters needs > by the routing system. > > As agreed at the RTGWG meeting I am notifying RTGWG, ISIS and OSPF WGs. > > The draft can be found here: > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01.tx t > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01 > > The following is a summary of the changed: > > I have changed the title to: > > Synchronisation of Routing Parameters > > ========= > > I have added in the introduction: > > Note that this protocol is only intended to be used for the propagation of > parameters needed to support the operation of the routing system. It > MUST NOT > be used as a general purpose parameter exchange protocol, and in > particular it > MUST NOT be used as a parameter negotiation protocol, since such use may > degrade the ability of the underlying link-state routing protocol to > carry our > its essential purpose. > > ======== > > I have changed the IANA text to say: > > Synchronisation of Routing Parameters > > ======== > > I have added to the security section: > > In specifying a new parameter, consideration must be given > to the impact of the additional parameter, and in particular the > rate of change of that parameter, on the dynamics of the link-state > routing protocol in use. In the specific case of the > Convergence Timer, the amount of data being carried and the > rate of change of the parameter value will have a negligible > impact on the link-state routing protocol in use. > > ========= > > Incorporated a number of review suggestions by Mohamed Boucadair (Mod) > > Added > > Such consistency may be ensured by deploying automated > means such as enforcing the new value by invoking the > management interface of all involved routers. For example, > a central management entity may be responsible for > communicating the new configuration value by means of > vendor-specific CLI, NETCONF, etc. This approach may be > attracting if all involved nodes expose technology-agnostic > and vendor-independent interfaces to tweak a given network-wide > configuration parameter. > > ====== > > I would like to propose that we move this forward to become a WG draft > and refine the detail under the WG process. > > - Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
