Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Eric Rosen <[e-mail]>]

On 11/29/2018 5:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> The updates in the -13 include new Updates headers for RFCs 7582 and 7900,
> which may or may not call for additional IESG eyes on the changes.  Just from
> looking at the diff, it's not entirely clear to me what about those documents is
> being updated.

In Alvaro's comments, he explicitly asked me to put 7582 and 7900 in the 
"Updates" header.

His reasoning was based on the the following text (which is unchanged 
from the previous version) from Section 3:

    The rules for finding a "match for reception" in [RFC6625] are hereby
    modified as follows:

       When applying the rules of Section 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of [RFC6625], it
       is REQUIRED to ignore any S-PMSI A-D route that has no PTA, or
       whose PTA specifies "no tunnel information present".

    There are other RFCs that update [RFC6625] and that modify the rules
    for finding a "match for reception".  See, e.g., [RFC7582] and
    [RFC7900].  When applying those modified rules, it is REQUIRED to
    ignore any S-PMSI A-D route that has no PTA, or whose PTA specifies
    "no tunnel information present".

Alvaro's comment was:

"This text is also Updating rfc7582 and rfc7900 (and others?) that Updated
rfc6625.  This document should then be marked to Update those other RFCs
explicitly."

This comment seems reasonable to me, but if you two would like to fight 
it out, just let me know the resolution ;-)