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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Sat, 18 March 2017 04:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DAE129526; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ysYS02pO55T; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F07821205D3; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15338; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489810480; x=1491020080; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=f1MgSgOk/trelc/9mAvIkz1vkc9wzs4yuPto6BrJEb4=; b=FuiRWs4Ofeuoo1/sD6bKOHKUxTERvnXe608whA6hz9RqgYAuisCf7k9k Ly7Tzkwa1CdTXsoI5lQn3OO+Y9/B+m8wotYH6eb2m40gq6ox5C0AlAX3s lXOwFGo/F2QgYWdpTXbmI5H0dG6adcHyJQ4bH94pgf1J3OXA1IUJX87oZ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CpAQDsssxY/5RdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5jYYEKB4Nbig+RW5AThS+CDoYiAhqCZz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayi?= =?us-ascii?q?FFQEBAQEDIwpcAgEIEQQBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEARIIiXiyZIImikwBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhk6Eb4UKglCCXwWWAYZIAZI4ggSPMIhOiwQBHziBBFg?= =?us-ascii?q?Vhxh1iCyBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,180,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="224880631"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Mar 2017 04:14:40 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2I4Eeja028976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 18 Mar 2017 04:14:40 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:14:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:14:39 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Uma Chunduri <>, Alia Atlas <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHSnzW2SbE6C4ZbzUa6gBdVacKo6KGZTDKwgABd8AD//6/X0IAAWLKA//+wBhCAAK82gP//61PA
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 04:14:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e37f318da16f4a5d970e42692dcbc53fXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 04:14:43 -0000

Uma –

This was always intended as a replacement for RFC 6822 – it was my error to label it as an update – thanx to Alia for spotting this.

The bis draft does NOT just describe the modifications – it contains the original text of RFC 6822 plus changes – and Appendix A summarizes the changes.

There is no problem here other than I incorrectly labeled this as an update.


From: Uma Chunduri []
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:26 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Alia Atlas;;
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01


>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.