|
Scott - Inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 3:16 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx>; draft-ietf-ospf-te- > link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr- > reuse-14 > > 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 [Les:] With respect, answering my question with a counter question does not answer my question.
😊 I have explained why I am reluctant - please explain what purpose your request serves. And why additional text is required for UDA when it is not needed for SA. The "purpose" of UDA - to me - is to provide the opportunity for proprietary/experimental applications. But as UDAs are by definition outside the scope of standardization, it is not within the purview of the
IETF or this document to place limitations on them. What I might judge to be an appropriate use case and what you might judge to be an appropriate use case might be different - and that should be OK. Which is why I don’t want to discuss "intent". > > if it is so far outside of the area covered by the document why not simply > remove it? > [Les:] UDA was put in based on comments received from the WG. You would need to convince the WG that UDAs are not needed - not just me. That said, removing it now could introduce backwards compatibility issues with the existing deployments unless the syntax changes were limited - so this idea should be considered carefully before proceeding. Les > 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 > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
