Hi again Les, For what it’s worth I agree with your preference to do a bis rather than a “patch” draft. The IESG has spent some time recently discussing bis vs. patch RFCs and the “overly burdensome” process. Based on those discussions, I’m optimistic that at least the IESG portion of document processing for RFCs 8919bis and 8920bis can be streamlined, i.e. I think folks will be willing to restrict their review to the changed aspects of the document only, without relitigating unrelated issues. This isn’t a guarantee, but nothing in life is guaranteed other than death and taxes. This presumes that the scope of the changes is kept tight and can be easily summarized, but that sounds like what you are planning.
Thanks, —John > On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > Bruno – > > Thanx for following up on this. > To update you and the WG … > > There was no followup/discussion to the email I sent on May 11, 2022 (which > you included below). > I expressed a preference for using the Errata process. > John decided to reject the Errata – for the reasons he specified in the > Errata themselves: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6631 > > This leaves the authors in the position of choosing between two alternatives: > > 1)Do nothing > > This clearly does not capture the clarifications which were discussed and > agreed upon in the email thread: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/?gbt=1&q=%22Proposed%20Errata%20for%20RFCs%208919%2F8920%22 > > 2)Create bis drafts for the two RFCs – incorporating the agreed upon changes. > > It is with some reluctance (see below) that we have decided to create bis > drafts. > You can expect to see them “soon” – certainly before IETF 114. > > NOTE: Personally, I do not find a “patch draft” very appealing – so not > listing that as an alternative. > > Why is there reluctance to create bis drafts? > > Unfortunately, the IETF process as regards bis drafts, where the goal is > simply clarification – not substantive changes, is overly burdensome. This is > discussed in some detail in the thread below. > And the length of time required to reach new-RFC publication is typically > multiple years – even when the content is not at all controversial. > As an example, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/history/ > > But, we will do what we can. > > Les > > > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com <bruno.decra...@orange.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 2:51 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; John Scudder > <j...@juniper.net>; cho...@chopps.org; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> > Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; stef...@previdi.net; > wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; > aretana.i...@gmail.com; martin.vigour...@nokia.com; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) > > Hi Les, John, all, > > Could we have an update on this? > > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder > […] > > I think the changes could be processed either as a bis or as a so-called > > “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially similar to the errata you > > submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW: blocks, for example) that Updates: RFC > > 8919. > […] > > Do let me know if we agree in principle on this as a way forward; if so > > I’ll close the errata. > > !! Hopefully, I’m not changing the meaning of John’s email with my above > edit. Please correct me as needed. > > • Since the errata has been closed, I’m assuming that there is an > agreement to proceed with a new draft. Is this correct? > • Can we have a confirmation that the new draft is on its way? Possibly > with an ETA? > > We do faced multiple interop issues with this ASLA document, and from > preliminary recent feedback this may not be over. So IMO the spec do need to > be clarified. > > Thanks, > --Bruno > > > > Orange Restricted > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 8:47 PM > To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppse...@cisco.com>; stef...@previdi.net; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E > Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; aretana.i...@gmail.com; > martin.vigour...@nokia.com; cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) > > John – > > Don’t know if you have completed your review of the mailing list archives on > this subject. > > Given it is almost a year since the discussion, I had to review it myself. 😊 > Here are some pointers: > > The discussion started with an email from Bruno asking for some clarification: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/DrehmMy9Ru7CNPTfAMmyCofXjTY/ > > > This led to proposed Errata for RFC 8919/8920 – the discussion of which can > be found here: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/?gbt=1&q=%22Proposed%20Errata%20for%20RFCs%208919%2F8920%22 > > Given the protracted discussions on the drafts which became RFC 8919/8920, I > am not eager to do a BIS draft simply to insert a clarification. > > I do think the discussion of the Errata on the list could be considered as > achieving consensus. > There are then two options: > > 1)Use the errata to document the clarifications > > 2)Use a “patch RFC” > > I have never done a “patch RFC” – wasn’t even aware this option existed. And > I am not clear on how it is done procedurally – is this simply a new draft > but everyone agrees to limit discussion given the “patch format”? > > Frankly, I don’t see the difference between the Errata and the “patch RFC”- > other than the latter is more work. > Certainly content-wise they are the same. > So your comment that Errata are only meant to address “bugs” doesn’t make it > clear why a “patch RFC” is OK but an Errata that has the same textual changes > is not. > > I would prefer to use the Errata if possible. > > Your thoughts? > > Les > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:16 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppse...@cisco.com>; stef...@previdi.net; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E > Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; aretana.i...@gmail.com; > martin.vigour...@nokia.com; cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) > > Hi Les, > > Yes that’s about right, except I think the changes could be processed either > as a bis or as a so-called “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially > similar to the errata you submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW: blocks, for > example) that Updates: RFC 8919. > > The IESG has in the past discussed whether and how to avoid problems such as > you describe, but so far to no effect. Because of such concerns — that even a > closely-focused bis may be treated as open season for review comments > unrelated to the substance of the actual changes — it’s pretty common > practice for authors to use patch RFCs instead. IMO these are ugly to have > floating around our document set, but our process creates a strong incentive > to use them. As such, if you wanted to follow that approach I wouldn’t be > against it, on the other hand if you view the bis as “the right thing” and > you want to DTRT, I’d do what I can to encourage the IESG to keep their > comments focused and not treat it as open season. > > Hope that helps. Do let me know if we agree in principle on this as a way > forward; if so I’ll close the errata. > > Thanks, > > —John > > > On May 10, 2022, at 1:08 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > John – > > If I interpret the essence of your comments correctly, you are expressing a > preference that the proposed changes be handled via a BIS draft rather than > an errata. > > I don’t have an objection to that – and in some ways it makes sense to me. > However, I have not been pleased (in general) with the way that the IETF – > and in particular the IESG review process– handles BIS drafts. > A BIS is created to address specific issues. But, based on past experience, > IESG review considers a BIS draft as an opportunity to revisit the draft in > its entirety – even when that was clearly NOT the stated goal during WG > review. > In a case such as this, I think the lack of agreed upon scope may be a major > issue. > > Any words of wisdom on this? 😊 > > Les > > From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:20 AM > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; stef...@previdi.net; > wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; > aretana.i...@gmail.com; martin.vigour...@nokia.com; cho...@chopps.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) > > -rfc-editor > > Hi All, > > This kind of erratum requires careful consideration and I’d appreciate it if > the WG were to weigh in. In particular, without reviewing the RFC and mailing > list carefully (which I’ve not yet done, but will) it’s unclear to me if the > proposed erratum meets this criterion: > > “Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used > to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC.” [1] > > So to verify this erratum we’d need one of two things: > > 1. A solid reason why the erratum is a straight-up bug. An example of an > erratum where this is unambiguously true is > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6866, where the RFC refers to a YANG > leaf that simply doesn’t exist. > At first reading, the present erratum isn’t obviously a bug. > > 2. Clear and unambiguous evidence in the written record (mainly, the mailing > list archives) that the WG consensus was for what the erratum says, and not > for the text in the RFC. Importantly, the authors’ saying “that is not what > was intended” isn’t good enough to establish this. What must be established > is what the WG had consensus for. > > The bar is intentionally high for introducing changes to RFCs via the errata > process. If neither of the above criteria can be fulfilled then I have to > mark the erratum as rejected. In that case the recourse would be to write and > process a short RFC that updates RFC 8919. > > Thanks, > > —John > > [1] > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ > > On Jul 6, 2021, at 4:27 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > LSR WG, > > This Errata is an outcome of the Flex-Algorithm discussion - is there any > further comment? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 7/5/21, 5:48 PM, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8919, > "IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V8pyJglE5nwp2XEvvZFMfNsgQt2U2UKisYFncXzo7IFZNV_oakn0wjZ0Ak22xg$ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Les Ginsberg <ginsb...@cisco.com> > > Section: GLOBAL > > Original Text > ------------- > Section 4.2: > OLD > > If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask > is greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored. > > (Later in Section 4.2) > OLD > > If link attributes are advertised associated with zero-length > Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and > user-defined applications, then any standard application and/or any > user-defined application is permitted to use that set of link > attributes so long as there is not another set of attributes > advertised on that same link that is associated with a non-zero-length > Application Identifier Bit Mask with a matching Application Identifier > Bit set. > > Section 6.2 > OLD > > Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application > Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined > applications are usable by any application, subject to the > restrictions specified in Section 4.2. If support for a new > application is introduced on any node in a network in the presence > of such advertisements, these advertisements are permitted to > be used by the new application. If this is not what is intended, > then existing advertisements MUST be readvertised with an explicit > set of applications specified before a new application is introduced. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Section 4.2 > NEW > > If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask > is greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored. > > When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all > applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the link attribute > advertisements in the sub-TLV. > > (Later in Section 4.2) > NEW > > Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length > Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and > user-defined applications. Such link attribute advertisements MUST be > used by standard applications and/or user defined applications when > no link attribute advertisements with a non-zero-length Application > Identifier Bit Mask and a matching Application Identifier Bit set are > present for a given link. Otherwise, such link attribute advertisements > MUST NOT be used. > > Section 6.2 > NEW > > Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length > Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and > user-defined applications. Such link attribute advertisements MUST be > used by standard applications and/or user defined applications when > no link attribute advertisements with a non-zero-length Application > Identifier Bit Mask and a matching Application Identifier Bit set are > present for a given link. Otherwise, such link attribute advertisements > MUST NOT be used. > > Notes > ----- > RFC 8919 defines advertising link attributes with zero > length Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM) and zero length User > Defined ApplicationBit Mask (UDABM) as a means of advertising link > attributes that can be used by any application. However, the text uses > the word "permitted", suggesting that the use of such advertisements > is "optional". Such an interpretation could lead to interoperability > issues and is not what was intended. > > The replacement text below makes explicit the specific conditions when > such advertisements MUST be used and the specific conditions under > which they MUST NOT be used. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8919 (draft-ietf-isis-te-app-19) > -------------------------------------- > Title : IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes > Publication Date : October 2020 > Author(s) : L. Ginsberg, P. Psenak, S. Previdi, W. Henderickx, > J. Drake > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Link State Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
