I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents.
It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the > WG. > > Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) > > 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO > CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 > and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. > Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that > it is IS-IS specific. > I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to > follow the traditional protocol specific naming. > If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use > "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) > > For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. > > Comments?? > > Les > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; email@example.com > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > > Hi Les, > > > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please > add a > > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have > added > > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > > anyone disagree? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <lsr- > > boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Folks - > > > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue > reported > > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes > from > > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > > > > Les > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > > To: Qin Wu <sunse...@huawei.com>; David Ward (wardd) > > <wa...@cisco.com>; Spencer Giacolone <spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>; > > Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>; John Drake > > <ldr...@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; > David > > Ward (wardd) <wa...@cisco.com>; Stefano Previdi <stef...@previdi.net> > > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the > IETF > > repository. > > > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > > Revision: 00 > > Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > > Document date: 2018-03-30 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 19 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis > > > > > > Abstract: > > In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial > > information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- > > performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to > > data-path selection as other metrics. > > > > This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering > > Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information > can > > be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The > information > > distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to > make > > path-selection decisions based on network performance. > > > > Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which > > network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms > for > > measuring network performance or acting on that information, once > > distributed, are outside the scope of this document. > > > > This document obsoletes RFC 7810. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr