Dhruv – <snip> This gives an impression (to me) that *all* changes made are listed here. Since that is not what is happening here, I suggested calling it - Important or Major or Motivation to update RFC 5316, whatever you like.... <end snip>
Got it. I will make that clear in the next revision. Thanx. Les From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 10:34 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; TEAS WG ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis Hi Les, On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:17 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dhruv - Thanx for reviewing/supporting the draft. Please see inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of > Dhruv Dhody > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 2:09 AM > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; TEAS WG > ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; lsr- > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis > > Hi, > > I went through the diff with RFC5316. The changes look good. Some > minor comments - > > (1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the > appendix? The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the > appendix? Also wondering if other changes (IANA, nits) could be listed > or we could call it "major change" :) [Les:] I personally do not have an issue using the normative keywords in the Appendix. Not doing so I think might trigger someone to ask if there is some inconsistency between the Appendix text and the text in the body of the draft. 😊 If you know of some prohibition against using such keywords in an Appendix please provide the reference. [Dhruv]: To me, the usefulness of this appendix is to find out what has changed in this bis. Very useful for any reviewer or implementor. The other option is to do rfcdiff :( So in this context, I provided the above comments suggesting rewording the text as a list of changes with rewording. Adding a reference to the relevant section could be useful too. Feel free to ignore, if you think this adds no value! The IANA change is a consequence of the introduction pf new IPv6 Local ASBR identifier sub-TLV. I do not see the need to mention it in the Appendix. I do not understand your comment about "major change". Could you explain? [Dhruv]: The current text says - Appendix A. Changes to RFC 5316 This document makes the following changes to RFC 5316. This gives an impression (to me) that *all* changes made are listed here. Since that is not what is happening here, I suggested calling it - Important or Major or Motivation to update RFC 5316, whatever you like.... > > (2) IPv6 Local ASBR ID and IPv6 Router ID is used interchangeably i.e. > table in IANA section 6.2 does not use the same name as the table in > section 3.1 > [Les:] The use of " IPv6 Router ID" in Section 3.1 is inconsistent. I will fix that. Thanx for pointing that out. Thanks! Dhruv Les > Hope this helps! > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:00 PM Christian Hopps > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > Hi LSR and TEAS, > > > > This begins a joint WG last call for: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ > > > > Please discuss any issues on the LSR mailing list. The WGLC will end March > 3, 2021. > > > > Authors, please indicate wether you are aware of any IPR related to this > document to the list. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris, Acee, (Lou and Pavan). > > _______________________________________________ > > Teas mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
