Ack. https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/commit/995e1a51964a8a6ac33d5e1e0cc1e40d41cd01ea
Thanks! Dhruv Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/ master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce- pcep-exp-codepoints-04&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent. com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi EKR, >> >> Here is the text that has been added in the working copy - >> >> As stated in [RFC3692], experiments >>> using these code points are not intended to be used in general >>> deployments and due care taken while assigning the correct >>> codepoints. >> >> > > This doesn't quite seem grammatical. Maybe > > "are not intended to be used in general deployments and due care must be > taken > to ensure that two experiments with the same code points are not run in > the same environment". > > -Ekr > > > " > >> See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of >>> experimental codepoints. >> >> >> Also RFC3692 is made normative. >> >> Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent. >> com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp- >> codepoints-05.txt >> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp- >> codepoints-04&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ >> dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a >>>> crash! You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does >>>> not need to be graceful. >>>> >>> >>> But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that. >>> You might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that >>> it precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you >>> can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state >>> that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove >>> my DISCUSS. >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> >>>> >>>> There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to >>>> see, move along now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19 >>>> *To:* Adrian Farrel >>>> *Cc:* The IESG; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on >>>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Adrian, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for your thoughts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow >>>> >>>> experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental >>>> codepoints. >>>> >>>> We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over, >>>> but this is >>>> a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out. >>>> This is >>>> not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations >>>> handle >>>> conflicts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there >>>> is confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security >>>> concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Ekr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ciao, >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
