I’ll post both in a few days giving WG some time. Dino
> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: > > looks just right > > thanks > > Scott > >> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And here is the diff for the same type of changes for 6833bis. >> >> Thanks, >> Dino >> >> <rfcdiff-rfc6833bis.html> >> >>> 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
