IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Sat, 18 March 2017 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54462129686; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ZA4KmimKJMmF; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A425129674; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCZ46236; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:26:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:26:26 +0000
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.69]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:26:15 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHSn0f665ryCG8LmUWtocVGBBHHMKGZVRpQgAB6vwD//4xLIIAAjjCA///P1BA=
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:26:15 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268540188611B@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAG4d1reSNUyDZwUN1tB4zJAJcfs40618_x5DpFofr99cQc3B0g@mail.gmail.com> <43be9b6ac3fa41708303a2a352360ab4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401886050@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com> <d35ee990ce104caaad61bd389c941dc4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268540188607C@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com> <66747b32bd0a4bb5a920736eca0b491a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <66747b32bd0a4bb5a920736eca0b491a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.136]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268540188611BSJCEML703CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.58CC7EB4.0095, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.69, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e3c6dbcc2eef6cfd4e54b7abed460607
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/8QmVMIb3crmaXS5WjqrKxWscx_w>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:28:13 -0000

Les,

>I am not aware of any requirement to have the original set of authors be authors of a bis document –

                Sorry to know this..

>and there are certainly other examples where authorship has changed.

                Not seen much in other WGs (but you will have numerous examples contrary to this)…

>And there are obvious practical reasons why authorship may change.

                The problem here is - draft currently says it “updates” 6822, but 95% of the content and spirit is same as 6822. In that case, it should have just described the appropriate changes without completely duplicating the same.
                But that was not the case. Now after ADs suggestion, if we agreed to obsolete 6822, it doesn’t sound logical to replace original authors with new set of contributors.

--
Uma C.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email