[Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 16 August 2016 19:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78C4126D74; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147137749168.22847.13062854392596201887.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:58:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/QVWwWIeZtHrh-zCdGgj-QzWIu0k>
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis@ietf.org
Subject: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:58:11 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The first sentence in section 4 says: Routers that do not support the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST silently ignore the TLV(s) and continue processing other TLVs in the same LSP. Is this the authoritative text for a new requirement, or is that preexisting behavior defined elsewhere? If the former, why would we expect an implementation that does not implement this spec (perhaps the implementors haven't read it) to honor this requirement? If the latter, then please state it descriptively (i.e. without 2119 keywords), preferably with a citation.
- Re: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draf… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ie… Ben Campbell