On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:23:36PM +0000, Eric Rosen wrote: > 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".
Ah, I see it now... > 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 ;-) ....and apparently had completely forgotten about Alvaro's remark. I'll go clear now, but will leave a mention of https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE for reasons why one might want (or not want) to explicitly say things like "this document Updates RFC XXXX by YYY". As a non-blocking comment, of course. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
