Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01 (Dale R. Worley) Mon, 08 August 2016 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DD312D0AF for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBO0WBr5Crc5 for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487F012B012 for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id WmPzbnYAx0MKRWmQqbCIG2; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:36 +0000
Received: from ([]) by comcast with SMTP id WmQpbVWV1S9gdWmQqbRsov; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u78FPefL015770; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:25:40 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u78FPd74015767; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:25:39 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: worley set sender to using -f
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
In-Reply-To: <> (
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:25:39 -0400
Message-ID: <>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKkDr8OTNra4FXnNiSmmR3NZWuqYmK/kygqd3tHihNKpq5qRX4eBnqeXfDlgNUhwtGkpqq3RjkO5mx/2SVOBse5mv69fTFa6ObbpoEDWGfupc5uY2+YI U+bTGqLznGUVvU6jVHZtX86kgsgwqwsV18tsrVRhX1zshQI/5cRWOt72GF8KJ8Al3YQpcoNqzjBDvnAQ5eX0z8gMQ+Ox2ijrkaXwVlb+JW/k8QIvarxZWVE9 KASl1NwLioyylmByddnz88xuhFADouJCW3oAzkk9O+G1hV3KZCQHhy3Hyn78d0JK9voR0wGIvRPWt0BE7ip5dg==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:38 -0000

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> writes:
> Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my
> reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG.

I'm not sure if it is formally specified, but it seems to me that a
Gen-Art review really should be copied to the WG.

> It therefore has to be considered whether making many of the
> changes you suggest might unintentionally suggest a substantive change
> where none is intended.

Of course, my comments are only a review.  Looking over them again, none
seem to technically critical; the ones with technical content are
improving the explanations of features that people (seem to be)
implementing correctly now.  So I don't see any reason to object to
minimizing changes from RFC 4971.

> [Les:] You refer here to the extended TLVs defined in RFC 7356
> (pretty good find for someone who is not supposed to be an IS-IS
> expert :-) ).

I looked at the type codepoint registry, and there were values over 255
(though unassigned), which was inconsistent with the text of
draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.  So it was just a matter of tracking down
what defined the alternative format.