but why not spend the few bits to make it clear what its intended for - the pushback on that simple request puzzles me I do not understand the reluctance if it is so far outside of the area covered by the document why not simply remove it? Scott > On Jun 14, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Scott - > > Allow me to inject myself here. As editor of the companion IS-IS document (draft-ietf-isis-te-app) I have received similar comments - for example from Ben (copied on this thread). > > I continue to be at a loss as to why you believe we have to say something about User Defined Applications beyond what we have already said: > > "User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to > Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or > any other standards body." > > If you do a search through both documents using "standard app" and "user defined app" I think you will find equivalent statements about both. Which means you are asking for some text regarding UDAs that doesn’t exist for SAs. > Why? > > The question of "UDA scope" - raised by both you and Ben - I think is an example of something that isn’t needed. > > Link attributes have been advertised for years - and the ability to define the appropriate scope (area or domain) has been supported by implementations for many years. While we are changing the format of how link attributes are advertised, we aren't altering the scopes supported. > > Standard applications can be (and have been) supported area wide and/or domain wide - and no restriction/specification of what scopes SHOULD/MUST be supported is present in either document other than to specify the type of LSAs in which the advertisements may appear. And since the new TLV introduced to carry application specific advertisements carries both SA and UDA bit masks in the same TLV, clearly the available scopes are the same for both types of applications. > > For me, the fact that UDA is outside the scope of standardization means the less said about how UDAs might be used the better. > > Do we have common ground here? > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 12:23 PM >> To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx >> Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx; last- >> call@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14 >> >> Reviewer: Scott Bradner >> Review result: Ready >> >> I have reviewed the latest version of this document and my earlier issues >> have >> been resolved at least well enough for teh document to be considered ready >> for >> publication. >> >> that said I still do not see where "User Defined Application Identifier" is >> actually cleanly defined - one can read carefully and determine but it would >> be >> easier on the reader to just say that it is a field that can be used to >> indicate the use of one or more non-standard applications within some scope >> (network, subnet, link, organization, ... not sure what scopes are meaningful >> here but it does not seem that a User Defined Application Identifier would >> be a >> global (between network operators) value >> >> Scott >> > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
