looks good to me - thanks Scott
> On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > WG, here is a diff with changes to reflect Scott’s comment. I wanted the list > of implementator to-be-aware changes to get working group quick review. > > I’m about to add a “Changes since RFC 6833” section to RFC 6833bis as well. > > Thanks, > Dino > > <rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html> > >> On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> a specific section only dealing with the changes since the RFC is best >> >> there is too much noise in the per iteration log (which as you already note >> should be removed) >> >> Scott >> >>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:57 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Note we do have a Document Change Log in Appendix B detailing the changes >>> put in each version starting with RFC6830. Would that suffice? Or you still >>> think a specific section is required? >>> >>> Dino >>> >>> <PastedGraphic-9.png> >>> >>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> it would be best to have a section called “changes since RFC 6830” so >>>> there is no ambiguity that the section covers the changes >>>> >>>> it would be fine to have that section just say “See “Implementation >>>> Considerations.” >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dino >>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were little changes that an implementor would need to know about >>>>>>> for the data-plane. But there were for the control-plane (i.e. >>>>>>> RFC6833bis). But in either case, we’ll add a section in each bis >>>>>>> document. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks - even if the section says “nothing to worry about” it will be >>>>>> useful >>>>> >>>>> I’ll title it “Implementation Considerations” and place it between 17 and >>>>> 18? >>>>> >>>>> 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 >>>>> 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 >>>>> 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 >>>>> 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 >>>>> 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you going to be reviewer for 6833bis as well? >>>>>> >>>>>> not assigned that yet but I will take a look >>>>> >>>>> I will try to get the sections done in the next day or so. I’m at the >>>>> 3GPP meetings this week. >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dino >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 6:14 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was just assigned to do a ops-dir review of >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this is not the review - that will come soon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but since this is a “bis” document that is to replace an existing RFC >>>>>>>> it needs to have a >>>>>>>> “changes since RFC 6830” section so that implementors of the earlier >>>>>>>> RFC will be able to tell >>>>>>>> what they need to change to bring their code up to date without having >>>>>>>> to compare the >>>>>>>> RFCs line by line (and likely miss something) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
