....and, probably, this draft won't stay a draft long enough for the problem to have any sort of materialisation.
s. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 10:03 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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) < > [email protected]> 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) <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> > 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- >> > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 >> <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: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM >> > To: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; David Ward (wardd) >> > <[email protected]>; Spencer Giacolone <[email protected] >> <[email protected]>>; >> > Spencer Giacalone <[email protected]>; John Drake >> > <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; >> David >> > Ward (wardd) <[email protected]>; Stefano Previdi <[email protected]> >> > 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 <http://tools.ietf.org>. >> > >> > The IETF Secretariat >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lsr mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
