----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:48 AM

> Hi Tom
>
> The intent is clear in the rest of the text.
>
> This was an oversight in the editing.
>
> How about "Network Wide Routing Parameter Registry"?

Stewart

I would like it to start with 'Routing ...' since that makes it appear
where I expect to find it in the (flat and very long) IANA parameter
list.

Routing Parameter Network Wide Registry perhaps

Clumsier I know but I am attached to an initial Routing which collates
it alongside RIP, RPL and such like.

Tom Petch

> - Stewart
>
> On 28/02/2017 10:54, t.petch wrote:
> > 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

Reply via email to