V1 has been posted with the additional text. Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM > 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 - > > 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) <ginsb...@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 > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr