Alvaro – I am not in agreement with your POV.
The work undertaken for this revision was very specifically to address Errata ID: 5293 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810) . This was deemed critical because the format of several sub-TLVs was incorrectly specified and we learned that this resulted in an interoperability problem because some implementations chose to include the unneeded reserved field and used a sub-TLV length of 5 whereas other implementations omitted the Reserved field and used the specified length of 4. We wanted to fasttrack this change to avoid further interoperability issues. Just prior to preparing for last call Errata ID: 5486 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486) was posted. As this was only an editorial change we decided to address that as well. There was never an intent to review/alter any other portion of the document. Rather we constrained the changes precisely so that we could publish a corrected version of the RFC ASAP. Your argument that since we are obsoleting RFC 7810 the entire document is fair game is not consistent with the agreed upon scope of the changes. The WG never agreed to open up the document for general revision and I do not believe it should be within the purview of IESG review to alter the scope of the work the WG agreed to take on. Suggesting that rather than issue a new version of RFC7810 we should issue a smaller document only with the corrections is a viable option – but IMO makes an unnecessary mess of things. As an aside, it is quite frustrating to me that it is almost 9 months since this work was started and we still have yet to complete it. Taking this long to publish a non-controversial and much needed editorial revision is much too long. Though I appreciate we are getting closer, I think this does not speak well of us as an organization. Opening up the document to general review can do nothing but delay this further – making it more likely that additional non-interoperable implementations may be written. Yoshi (or any other IETF participant) is free at any time to raise questions about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes are needed. But that is not within the scope of this work. Les From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yoshifumi Nishida <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: Les: You are right in pointing out that the changes made to rfc7810 are the ones mentioned in the appendix. That was the motivation that originated this work. However, this document doesn’t just modify rfc7810, it formally declares it Obsolete. That indicates that we (the WG, etc.) are opening up the whole document for review/comments…which obviously means that Yoshi’s comments are not out of scope. The WG didn’t change anything else (which is ok), but the IETF Last Call exists to include cross-area review and to allow others (e.g. non-WG participants) to comment. In any case, it seems to me that Yoshi’s comments are clarifying questions which may not require changes to the document itself. But I’ll leave that discussion/decision to him and to the TSV ADs. Note that if what is wanted (by the WG) is to Update rfc7810 (and not Obsolete it), and constrain the text to be reviewed/commented on, then this is not the right document. That document would have contained only the changes. We’re still in time to change the direction. I’m explicitly cc’ing the lsr-chairs so they can make any needed clarification. Thanks! Alvaro. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can understand why.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
