Hi Les, It does and thanks for the update.
Thanks, Ketan -----Original Message----- From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: 17 July 2018 17:32 To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; 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 V1 has been posted with the additional text. Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM > 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 - > > 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 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
