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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Mon, 08 August 2016 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016ED128E19 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xn6zjhnkMUg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4893912D0A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.104]) by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id WmOebLain8GkCWmQqbwDTY; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:36 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.100.16.189]) by comcast with SMTP id WmQpbVWV1S9gdWmQqbRsov; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:36 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u78FPefL015770; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:25:40 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u78FPd74015767; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:25:39 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01
In-Reply-To: <03034d7343ec4aac9611de2eac338ba1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> (ginsberg@cisco.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:25:39 -0400
Message-ID: <874m6v9tak.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKkDr8OTNra4FXnNiSmmR3NZWuqYmK/kygqd3tHihNKpq5qRX4eBnqeXfDlgNUhwtGkpqq3RjkO5mx/2SVOBse5mv69fTFa6ObbpoEDWGfupc5uY2+YI U+bTGqLznGUVvU6jVHZtX86kgsgwqwsV18tsrVRhX1zshQI/5cRWOt72GF8KJ8Al3YQpcoNqzjBDvnAQ5eX0z8gMQ+Ox2ijrkaXwVlb+JW/k8QIvarxZWVE9 KASl1NwLioyylmByddnz88xuhFADouJCW3oAzkk9O+G1hV3KZCQHhy3Hyn78d0JK9voR0wGIvRPWt0BE7ip5dg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5l-ZxiG0_sH0BRsFd2ZaOqY2xLw>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.all@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:25:39 -0000

"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