[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ms-ospf
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
From: "Ketan Talaulikar \(ketant\)" <ketant=40cisco.com () dmarc ! ietf ! org>
Date: 2018-07-24 15:44:54
Message-ID: f8fc7eb4e1984c709ecf69588b5e9953 () XCH-ALN-008 ! cisco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi Les,
It does and thanks for the update.
Thanks,
Ketan
-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: 17 July 2018 17:32
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Ketan Talaulikar \
(ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps \
<chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
V1 has been posted with the additional text.
Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
> <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
>
> Ketan -
>
> I don't want to be overly prescriptive here.
> The need for supporting backwards compatibility is limited by the
> amount of existing deployment by implementations that chose the
> "length 5" solution - and hopefully any such issues will be
> short-lived as the problematic implementations get upgraded.
>
> But If there is a need for backwards compatibility it is possible that
> both transmit/receive are required. This is a judgment call for
> implementers and the new text in the draft is not meant to tell
> implementers what they SHOULD do - only to remind them that this may
> be an issue which they will have to consider. If they think receive
> only is sufficient that's fine, but it is beyond what I think the draft needs to \
> say.
> Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:29 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
> > <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> >
> > Hi Les,
> >
> > This sounds good. I would suggest being liberal in receive (i.e.
> > accept and interpret the incorrect encoding) and there is no need to
> > send that erroneous encoding.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Sent: 17 July 2018 13:30
> > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
> > <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> >
> > Ketan -
> >
> > Thanx for taking on the role of shepherd.
> >
> > I am attaching some proposed diffs which I think addresses your concern.
> > Let me know if this suffices and we can publish an update.
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:55 AM
> > > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;
> > > lsr@ietf.org
> > > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I was reviewing this draft as the Shepherd. It is a fairly simple
> > > and straightforward bis update to RFC7810 to fix an encoding error.
> > >
> > > There is one point that I would like the authors and WG to consider.
> > >
> > > The draft in the appendix talks about two interpretations of the
> > > erroneous sub- TLVs and from the conversation on the list I get
> > > the impression that there are at least two implementations out
> > > there which did different interpretations. Do we want to consider
> > > putting in a suggestion (i.e. not normative perhaps) that
> > > implementations updated to this specifications accept the sub-TLV
> > > with the Reserved field included and size 5? So they don't
> > > consider such an encoding as error or
> > malformed on reception?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> > > Sent: 18 June 2018 17:38
> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps
> > > <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> > > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> > >
> > > Hi Les,
> > > Yes - the Working Group Last call has completed. We'll find a
> > > shepherd and request publication.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Acee
> > >
> > > On 6/15/18, 10:49 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > WG chairs -
> > >
> > > Can we consider WG last call completed? (It has been more than
> > > 3
> > > weeks...)
> > >
> > > Would really like to get this small but important correction
> > > published ASAP
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lsr mailing list
> > > Lsr@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic