Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 09 July 2018 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D1612D949; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=unavailable 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 Ts-as9z79YJG; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54172128CF3; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.5] (c83-250-142-104.bredband.comhem.se [83.250.142.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E3321801510; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:13:07 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <6FD38147-EA21-4336-B436-1072BF449DE2@huawei.com> <5B43276F.2040405@cisco.com> <8A3E4F27-F540-424E-8617-2C986FD3DA00@cisco.com> <5B43545B.7070403@cisco.com> <13338F6E-0DFD-4D80-8719-1947514933B9@cisco.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <aaa8719c-00d3-3b50-86da-093fe334af31@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:13:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13338F6E-0DFD-4D80-8719-1947514933B9@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/1oKunKt_FesZNvEwO6GhXSikKdU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:13:13 -0000

Folks,

I agree - no reason to delay!

There is one small difference between what is in the document and what 
is in the RFC I pointed to

The document has "...as described in [BCP 14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."

While RFC has "...as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."

The reference list in the RFC do not have BCP 14 listed as a reference.
I don't know if this helps.

Acee

BCP 14 is both [RFC2119] and [RFC8174].

/Loa

On 2018-07-09 14:29, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Strange, I'd remove the reference to [BCP14] since RFC 8174 and BCP 14 are the same document. I'm going to request publication as this certainly isn't enough to delay for an update.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 7/9/18, 8:26 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
>      Hi Acee,
>      
>      that is exactly what I have in the draft.
>      
>      thanks,
>      Peter
>      
>      On 09/07/18 13:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>      > Hi Peter,
>      >
>      > The new boiler plate for requirements language, with references to both RFC 2119 and RFC 8174, is:
>      >
>      >
>      > 1.1.  Requirements Language
>      >
>      >     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>      >     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>      >     "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
>      >     14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>      >     capitals, as shown here.
>      >
>      >
>      > This should resolve the IDNITS warning.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Acee
>      >
>      > On 7/9/18, 5:14 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>; wrote:
>      >
>      >      Hi Yingzhen,
>      >
>      >      thanks for your review.
>      >
>      >      As regards to first IDNITS warning, not sure about the first one, I took
>      >      the section "Requirements Language" from RFC8395 as suggested by Loa.
>      >      RFC2119 is only referenced there, that should not be a problem though.
>      >
>      >      I removed the reference to ISO10589.
>      >
>      >      thanks,
>      >      Peter
>      >
>      >      On 09/07/18 00:41 , Yingzhen Qu wrote:
>      >      > Dear authors,
>      >      >
>      >      > I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-id-04 as requested by
>      >      > LSR chairs. I’d like to thank all authors for their contributions on
>      >      > this document, also people who have reviewed this document and provided
>      >      > valuable comments and discussions.
>      >      >
>      >      > The document is well written and ready for publication.
>      >      >
>      >      > IDNITS check found a couple of nits:
>      >      >
>      >      >    Miscellaneous warnings:
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      >    ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
>      >      >
>      >      >       mention RFC 2119.  The boilerplate contains a reference [BCP14],
>      >      > but that
>      >      >
>      >      >       reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- The document date (July 1, 2018) is 7 days in the past.  Is this
>      >      >
>      >      >       intentional?
>      >      >
>      >      >    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      >       (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
>      >      > references
>      >      >
>      >      >       to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>      >      >
>      >      >    == Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
>      >      >
>      >      >       reference was found in the text
>      >      >
>      >      >       '[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
>      >      > "Intermed...'
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP14'
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'
>      >      >
>      >      >       Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).
>      >      >
>      >      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      > Thanks,
>      >      >
>      >      > Yingzhen
>      >      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      
>      
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64