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

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Tue, 24 October 2017 13:23 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 4483613F4BE; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 06:23:20 -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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 wiTOKVcjxWvt; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 06:23:17 -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 A748113F505; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 06:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 80-110-97-151.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.97.151] helo=[192.168.66.220]) by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1e6yuj-00059v-9w; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:06:37 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <CAABB868-09B2-4A15-AB30-CACCB165387E@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_718A724B-9519-4C9C-952D-2D696B2FCB3B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:23:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <EBFEE61C-8A2B-4F1D-8901-0DBBE8C47DB1@juniper.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: "John G. 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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yq5cQdCgL86xhs6vo-temSeez5A>
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: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:23:20 -0000

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].


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.

Christoph

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



> On 24 Oct 2017, at 14:47, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> I don't think the -05 version specifies the version of python?
> 
> On Oct 16, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:
>> In the I-D I'd leave out the unittest part for the sake of brevity. I'd
>> also specify what version of python this code was tested against.
> 
> Seems like a good idea to do that. I see you specified "python3" but I was imagining something along the lines of "this code was tested with Python 3.2.3" or whatever.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John