Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 08 August 2016 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5F612B02C; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.757
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XS0fPoQ43TKM; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2EC12D0CB; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=59511; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470694552; x=1471904152; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=YJW2J2X0kHWFx+4HzQdDvu3avoiV/vLvAhmQ0bR+B9s=; b=TEdedmnIgVnGP1Lftw/pwtFazD2bdKALXFOYrswKGXrvPjnX7/zcd/3g 9N9b0R0NRi4GJKXlce8R+koGxKky8ginj5ghfduUetVjmoKGPqysZtLoM ytoR+M7E8ndUNWVmsPnc71/kCR5v1M7PQKdB2NwvckoY2ejpwEDjMP8D6 E=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-02.txt, wdiff draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01.txt draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-02.txt.htm : 19604, 21722
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoAgCAA6lX/5pdJa1dg0VWfAe5FIF9J?= =?us-ascii?q?IV5AoFDOBQBAQEBAQEBXSeEXgEBBRoBTAQODAQCAQgRBAEBIQEGBwIwFAkIAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?OBQgGiCMOwwABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEODoYqhE2EEgoHAYV3BYYMj?= =?us-ascii?q?UCFbQGDOoJignyCc4J3gXIXN4QNh16BH4VKgRqFUIN3AR42gg8fgUxuhTEPFwQ?= =?us-ascii?q?cfwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,492,1464652800"; d="htm'217?txt'217?scan'217,208,217";a="307578838"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Aug 2016 22:15:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u78MFn9u029461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:15:49 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:15:49 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:15:49 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Thread-Topic: IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHR8Yke7CKWhD5IGEG0LA0f9SMANqA/oThQ
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:15:48 +0000
Message-ID: <087a26be1dbe4f05ad4283b34cb10011@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <03034d7343ec4aac9611de2eac338ba1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> (ginsberg@cisco.com) <874m6v9tak.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <874m6v9tak.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.91.7]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_087a26be1dbe4f05ad4283b34cb10011XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/R9goZDVNaQWMtM_tvnWob1PClqQ>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.all@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 22:15:56 -0000

Dale -

Attached please find an updated version and diffs from previous.
Please let me know if this adequately addresses your comments.

    Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:worley@ariadne.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 8:26 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.all@ietf.org; isis-
> wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01
> 
> "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> 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.
> 
> Dale