Looks good Dino.
Noted one nit in section 18, not worth spinning a new version IMO:
"The is 1 remaining bit" -> "The 1 remaining bit"
Fabio
On 8/20/18 11:42 AM, Dino Farinacci 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
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
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
