Re: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-05

Dear Lou,

Thank you for your review.

We will add a clarification that NUL termination is not expected.

The question actually came up during one of the implementations so you are right that there is value in being specific.

Kind regards,

Job

On 9 Feb 2017, 20:01 -0500, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, wrote:
> Reviewer: Lou Berger
> Review Date: 2/9/17
> Review requested by: 2/13
> Intended Status: Standards track
>
> Summary:
> I have one minor comment about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
>
> Comments:
>
> Draft is short and easy to understand. I see the need for one minor
> clarification that can be resolved based on implementation experience.
>
> Major Issues:
>
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
> In reading the document it's unclear if Shutdown Communication field
> must include a trailing zero or not. (I authored something similar once
> and had an interop problem where one implementation assumed null
> termination was required and included in length, while the other didn't.
> Our intent was no null required, but the spec wasn't explicit.) Either
> are fine, and given there are implementations you might just want to
> have the spec match the implementation.
>
> Nits:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-05.txt
> reports nits that should be fixed.
>
> That's it!
> Cheers,
> Lou
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr