On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 01:08:08AM +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Thanks for this clear and well-written document! I just have a couple > > of editorial comments that probably don't even need a response. > > Thanks for reading, Ben. > > Every review comment deserves a response.
You're too kind! Both proposed changes look good to me :) -Ben > > Section 4 > > > > There will remain an issue with compatibility between implementations > > of RFC 8231 that might set any of the unassigned flags, and current > > (such as [RFC8281]) and future (such as > > [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]) specifications. That problem > > cannot be fixed in old implementations by any amount of > > documentation, and can only be handled for future specifications by > > obsoleting the Flags field and using a new technique. Fortunately, > > however, most implementations will have been constructed to set > > unused flags to zero which is consistent with the behavior described > > in this document. > > > > I had a little bit of trouble reading this, as I keep expecting the > > first sentence to be saying that there is a legitimately-allocated flag > > value that is set with intent to change behavior, but it doesn't really > > say anything specifically about a flag value getting allocated (or > > used). > > How about this becomes... > > There will remain an issue with compatibility between implementations > of RFC 8231 that might set any of the unassigned flags, and current > (such as [RFC8281]) and future (such as > [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]) specifications that assign specific > meanings to flags if set. > > > W.r.t. obsoleting Flags vs. relying on "most implementations" to be > > consistent with this document's recommendations, is it worth being more > > clear about the conclusion that this document is drawing, namely that > > the risk of bad interactions is sufficiently small that there is no > > desire to incur the cost of obsoleting/replacing the Flags field? > > How about > OLD > Fortunately, > however, most implementations will have been constructed to set > unused flags to zero which is consistent with the behavior described > in this document. > NEW > Fortunately, > however, most implementations will have been constructed to set > unused flags to zero which is consistent with the behavior described > in this document and so the risk of bad interactions is sufficiently > small that there is no need to obsolete the existing Flags field. > END > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
