Hi Les,

This sounds good. I would suggest being liberal in receive (i.e. accept and 
interpret the incorrect encoding) and there is no need to send that erroneous 
encoding.

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Sent: 17 July 2018 13:30
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
<a...@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

Ketan -

Thanx for taking on the role of shepherd.

I am attaching some proposed diffs which I think addresses your concern.
Let me know if this suffices and we can publish an update.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:55 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; 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 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

Reply via email to