Will fix. Thanks for the catch Fabio. Dino
> On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
