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?


-----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>; lsr@ietf.org
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.

´╗┐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 mailing list

Reply via email to