Hi All, I was reviewing this draft as the Shepherd. It is a fairly simple and straightforward bis update to RFC7810 to fix an encoding error.
There is one point that I would like the authors and WG to consider. The draft in the appendix talks about two interpretations of the erroneous sub-TLVs and from the conversation on the list I get the impression that there are at least two implementations out there which did different interpretations. Do we want to consider putting in a suggestion (i.e. not normative perhaps) that implementations updated to this specifications accept the sub-TLV with the Reserved field included and size 5? So they don't consider such an encoding as error or malformed on reception? Thanks, Ketan -----Original Message----- From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 18 June 2018 17:38 To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; email@example.com Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Hi Les, Yes - the Working Group Last call has completed. We'll find a shepherd and request publication. Thanks, Acee On 6/15/18, 10:49 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: WG chairs - Can we consider WG last call completed? (It has been more than 3 weeks...) Would really like to get this small but important correction published ASAP _______________________________________________ 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