FWIW - I agree with Les. We really don't want to support both interpretations of the ambiguous encoding. Thanks, Acee
On 7/17/18, 5:06 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: Ketan - I don't want to be overly prescriptive here. The need for supporting backwards compatibility is limited by the amount of existing deployment by implementations that chose the "length 5" solution - and hopefully any such issues will be short-lived as the problematic implementations get upgraded. But If there is a need for backwards compatibility it is possible that both transmit/receive are required. This is a judgment call for implementers and the new text in the draft is not meant to tell implementers what they SHOULD do - only to remind them that this may be an issue which they will have to consider. If they think receive only is sufficient that's fine, but it is beyond what I think the draft needs to say. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:29 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) > <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > > 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) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) > <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > 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) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > > Sent: 18 June 2018 17:38 > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > 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)" <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
