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>; 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.
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
