Acee, I think you are saying you prefer to remove the “updates”. Is that right? It was a little confusing given the reply chain.
(I’ve already given my opinion but said I’m not going to go to the mat over it.) —John On May 17, 2021, at 8:21 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: That we be my preference as well. We’ve had several discussions on what constitutes “update” and I believe that the consensus was that a document isn’t “updated” unless the current behavior is changed. If we’ve done our jobs, protocols are designed to be extended and these extensions shouldn’t constitute updates. Thanks, Acee From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:55 AM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com>, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Subject: Re: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT) Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> Resent-Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:54 AM Peter: Hi! As John mentioned, "Since for better or worse we don’t have a firm definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end.” I rather you leave it in. Thanks! Alvaro. On May 17, 2021 at 6:42:48 AM, Peter Psenak (ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>) wrote: John, Alvaro, do we have a consensus whether we need the update to RFC 7370 or not? thanks, Peter On 13/05/2021 21:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Alvaro – > > FWIW, I agree w John here. > > There are many examples – to cite a few: > > Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS > reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, > inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute > TLVs) > > … > > Reference > > [RFC5305][RFC5316][RFC7370][RFC8668] > > RFC 8868 is not marked as updating RFC 7370. > > RFC 7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5316/RFC 5305. > > Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 (Extended IP reachability, MT > IP. Reach, IPv6 IP. Reach, and MT IPv6 IP. Reach TLVs) > > … > > Reference > > [RFC5305][RFC7370] > > Again, RFC7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5305. > > I think it is sufficient to request that IANA add the new RFC to the > list of References for the modified registry. > > Les > > *From:* Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of > *John Scudder > *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM > *To:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>> > *Cc:* John Scudder via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>; Christian Hopps > <cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>; > lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>; The IESG > <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org>; > lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT) > > On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana > <aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com> > <mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing > registry. > > Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s > normal for an > RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a > previous RFC that > established that registry. I think the “updates” just confuses > matters and > clutters things up, and should be removed. > > > In this case the document is not only registering a value. It is > changing the name of the registry, adding an extra column, and > updating all the other entries (§11.1.*). The Updates tag is used > because it significantly changes the registry. > > Still seems unnecessary to me, registries are moving targets, citation > of all the relevant RFCs in their references should be sufficient. So, > the registry would be updated so that it cited both this spec and 7370, > and someone wanting to know “how did the registry get this way?” would > be able to work it out. > > I’m not going to fight about it; the “updates” is not very harmful. I > say “not very” because the diligent reader might be led to think they > need to go read RFC 7370 in order to properly understand this spec, and > waste some time realizing that isn’t true. Since for better or worse we > don’t have a firm definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it > comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end. > > $0.02, > > —John >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
