draft-ietf-isis-te-app-17 has been posted with this change. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:53 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx>; Peter Psenak > <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Benjamin Kaduk > <kaduk@xxxxxxx>; lsr@xxxxxxxx; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft- > ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr- > reuse-14 > > I'm fine if both documents have the text > > thanks > > > Scott > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Rob - > > > > IS-IS draft currently states: > > > > "User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to > > Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or > > any other standards body." > > > > (OSPF has this text also.) > > > > I am happy enough to include an additional statement similar to the OSPF > text below in Section 4. > > > > Scott can speak for himself of course - but not clear to me that this really > satisfies him since his comment was on the OSPF draft that already had this > text. > > > > And not clear that this would make Ben (copied) any more comfortable > since his concern (clarified in his most recent post) is about discussing > allocation of the UDA bit space. > > > > But I will add the text - it makes the two drafts closer in content - which has > been an ongoing goal during the review process. > > > > Thanx. > > > > Les > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:09 AM > >> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Les Ginsberg > >> (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; ops- > >> dir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: RE: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link- > attr- > >> reuse-14 > >> > >> Hi Les, > >> > >> Would you be opposed to adding text similar to the OSPF paragraph > below to > >> the ISIS draft? > >> > >> I think that the OSPF draft does a better job of first introducing UDAs. > Having > >> just looked at the ISIS draft, it does seem to somewhat assume that the > >> reader will just know what they are ... > >> > >> I understand that this should resolve Scott's concerns. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Rob > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Scott O. > Bradner > >>> Sent: 15 June 2020 11:17 > >>> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; ops- > >>> dir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te- > >>> link-attr-reuse-14 > >>> > >>> that looks just fine to me - thanks > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>>> On Jun 15, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Peter Psenak > >>> <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Scott. > >>>> > >>>> there is a following text in the OSPF draft: > >>>> > >>>> "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized > >>>> applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of > >>>> applications that are not standardized. We call such an > >>>> application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These > >>>> applications are not subject to standardization and are outside of > >>>> the scope of this specification." > >>>> > >>>> Feel free to propose an additional text if you feel above is not > >>> sufficient. > >>>> > >>>> thanks, > >>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 14/06/2020 21:22, Scott Bradner via Datatracker wrote: > >>>>> 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 > > > > -- > > 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
