On 11/29/2018 5:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > The updates in the -13 include new Updates headers for RFCs 7582 and 7900, > which may or may not call for additional IESG eyes on the changes. Just from > looking at the diff, it's not entirely clear to me what about those documents > is > being updated.
In Alvaro's comments, he explicitly asked me to put 7582 and 7900 in the "Updates" header. His reasoning was based on the the following text (which is unchanged from the previous version) from Section 3: The rules for finding a "match for reception" in [RFC6625] are hereby modified as follows: When applying the rules of Section 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of [RFC6625], it is REQUIRED to ignore any S-PMSI A-D route that has no PTA, or whose PTA specifies "no tunnel information present". There are other RFCs that update [RFC6625] and that modify the rules for finding a "match for reception". See, e.g., [RFC7582] and [RFC7900]. When applying those modified rules, it is REQUIRED to ignore any S-PMSI A-D route that has no PTA, or whose PTA specifies "no tunnel information present". Alvaro's comment was: "This text is also Updating rfc7582 and rfc7900 (and others?) that Updated rfc6625. This document should then be marked to Update those other RFCs explicitly." This comment seems reasonable to me, but if you two would like to fight it out, just let me know the resolution ;-) _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
