John - > OLD: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag > > NEW: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field >
Seems reasonable to me. > Absent further discussion, I'll plan to open an editorial erratum with that > proposal; in light of the alleged waves, I will get it done by end of week, > possibly today. Since I'll be the one opening it, and since it's not > completely > uncontentious, I'll ask one of the other ADs to handle verifying or rejecting > it. > Thanx for the prompt attention. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:13 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>; Hannes Gredler > <han...@gredler.at>; stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > <cfils...@cisco.com>; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; han...@rtbrick.com; > DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; > slitkows.i...@gmail.com; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Peter > Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Horneffer, Martin > <martin.hornef...@telekom.de>; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; > edc.i...@gmail.com; ro...@google.com; milojevici...@gmail.com; > s...@ytti.fi; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label > > Hi Les, > > > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:03 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Let's be careful here. > > Certainly. I don't think we've been proceeding recklessly so far, have we? > > > SR-MPLS has been deployed for several years, there are multiple > implementations which have demonstrated interoperability, and clearly the > correct encoding of the SID is a key element of that interoperability. > > > > As a co-author, I am happy to listen to relevant feedback, but any textual > change which has the potential to even suggest that an actual change has > been made in encoding is clearly undesirable. > > > > John - I note you have already acknowledged any errata (or erratum 😊) > would be an editorial one - but given the above context and the fact that no > one over these many years has publicly voiced any concerns > > ^ until now > > > argues for caution. > > I am sure you have more pressing issues, but as your post has already > started to cause waves, I would appreciate resolving this sooner rather than > later. > > It's not the direction I had been thinking in, but Tony Li got there first and > suggested [1] a change that I think would get the job done. It has the merit > of > being a minimal update to the published text. The change would be, > > OLD: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag > > NEW: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field > > Absent further discussion, I'll plan to open an editorial erratum with that > proposal; in light of the alleged waves, I will get it done by end of week, > possibly today. Since I'll be the one opening it, and since it's not > completely > uncontentious, I'll ask one of the other ADs to handle verifying or rejecting > it. > > —John > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/xIBSCGENJAuPHquywuPvt- > oItIE/ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr