Done and posted new versions for both 8919bis and 8920bis. Les
From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 7:41 AM To: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT) That seems reasonable. Les, I encourage you not to wait for the end of IESG review to make the change, if you’re going to — maybe it will help someone else even though Warren did extra work (sorry Warren, I tried). —John On May 18, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:35 AM, Les Ginsberg <ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Warren - Thanx for the thoughtful (and entertaining [Image removed by sender. 😊] ) review. I have no objection to adding a forward reference to the "changes" section for both this document and draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis. My only concern is whether this violates the guideline that the "abstract should be complete in itself". Yah, that did bother me slightly — but I decided to just ignore the sense of disquiet and hope it was just me :-) Another option would just be to have something towards the start of the Introduction saying something similar? W Les -----Original Message----- From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 8:22 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org>; cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org> Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT) Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Du2inLYK-hBC29i17_gdaif8tM0kGoWCp_ulCHE68Wbmn9263fadnCDxrAdPIPGoN5pf9HDLyFwq$> positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Du2inLYK-hBC29i17_gdaif8tM0kGoWCp_ulCHE68Wbmn9263fadnCDxrAdPIPGoN5pf9B_4mwmW$> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I initially wrote this up as a DISCUSS position, but made it NoObjection instead because it didn't strictly fit the DISCUSS criteria -- that said, I *do* think that it is important and would really appreciate it if you'd strongly consider addressing it (it's also IMO a trivial update!). I reviewed this document on a plane, and had a bunch of comments... but it was only when I came to ballot that and I saw John Scudder's note of "Note that this document is a tightly-scoped update to RFC 8919. Prudent reviewers will focus on the diff vs. 8919 [1], and *not* try to do a detailed/full document review." - it would have been great to know that before reading the document! Knowing what has changed in a -bis is really important - it lets the reader know if they actually have to bother reading the new document. This information *does* exist in this document, but it is buried in the RFC equivalent of the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” (Section 9, between Security Considerations and References) Normally, in an "Updates" document we'd say (in the Abstract) something like "This document updates RFC 8919 by x and y and z". This is somewhat harder to do in a grammatically correct manner with Obsoletes, but perhaps something like: "This document obsoletes RFC 8919; the changes are documented in Section 9"? (I'm planning on balloting the same on the OSPF version of this doc).
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
