IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Wed, 25 October 2017 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC86013B0EA; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Q1B4J7HCKR5p; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hated.at (mail.hated.at [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDE9C13AE04; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a01:190:1702:0:205e:716c:5504:75af] by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1e7IOj-00015l-47; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:54:54 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <290B6743-8CA2-439F-8B27-385CF58D6ADB@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A300A99-DD3E-48FE-9AB1-3AAB22388463"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:11:27 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CE5BE690-8192-4824-8AB8-305C226F1A57@juniper.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
References: <00A83D9A-C00E-4A91-8007-421067DCE879@juniper.net> <20171014153402.GY19142@Vurt.local> <55EAFCD6-4783-4DDD-B1B9-30AF18FD2342@tix.at> <20171016120520.GM19142@Vurt.local> <EBFEE61C-8A2B-4F1D-8901-0DBBE8C47DB1@juniper.net> <CAABB868-09B2-4A15-AB30-CACCB165387E@tix.at> <CE5BE690-8192-4824-8AB8-305C226F1A57@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ocy4D5XnbMERooN71Gnrqxk7FEs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:11:38 -0000

Hi,

I just uploaded the -6 version as requested. The change is exactly what I suggested below (adding exact python version + removing statement about unit-tests).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/>

Cheers

Christoph

--
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 25 Oct 2017, at 10:05, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at <mailto:c@tix.at>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Thanks for pointing that out. Giving the complete Python version can be useful.
>> 
>> I suggest to replace:
>> 
>> The code below shows a python3 implementation of the comparison
>>  algorithm described above.  The full python3 implementation including
>>  unittests can be optained at https://github.com/stoffi92/flowspec-cmp
>>  [1].
>> 
>> with something like this:
>> 
>> The code below shows a Python3 implementation of the comparison
>>  algorithm. The full code was tested with Python 3.6.3 and can be
>>  optained at https://github.com/stoffi92/flowspec-cmp
>>  [1].
> 
> Works for me.
> 
>> a) adding the full Python version (not only 3) I was running the tests on
>> b) not mentioning the unittests as Job suggested (I somehow missed that)
>> 
>> I suggest I wait for some more feedback (if any) on the current -5 document and upload a -6 by the end of the week.
> 
> I'm OK with that but for that matter, I don't see any special reason to wait, you can go ahead and upload -6 whenever you have it. It is easy to do a -7 if needed, after all.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email