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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
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 877DA130FF7; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 uoLk9CztoyWU; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F97130FAC; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5307; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531149128; x=1532358728; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=60h2mrw6wDx8z/Nhlzfz4wNPEgJZwNd7AH6tLusgQbk=; b=YVSmqMCsGwKUnDjjCDz6j7KXkyu0BGYK4Ccgw5048D75iAkJsi0JV6LV wWrdfvrhs6SA7UscF+3OS87SoemcsoVgLggap4PvRrWpVCwSQZfyWsLid O3HXJbm7C+UyzR/IxCAbllowWQzVAzn1/QtpDTtNAhRCF4axdOmALzeWG E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B0AQCRekNb/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQrfyiDeohjjV2VRoFmCxgLhEkCgmY4FAECAQECAQECbRw?= =?us-ascii?q?MhTcBAQEDAQEhDwEFNgoBEAsYAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECARUwBgEMAQUCAQGDHYF?= =?us-ascii?q?/D6l6gg4OhFyDaoE1BYELiTk/gQ+DD4MYAQGBKCCDGYJVAodikW0JjySBQoZ?= =?us-ascii?q?UhUeHfYoTgVghgVIzGggbFTuCaYsUhUA9MI5RAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,330,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="5006923"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2018 15:12:04 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.38] ([10.147.24.38]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w69FC3uV010187; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:12:04 GMT
Message-ID: <5B437B43.2090704@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:12:03 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 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> <aaa8719c-00d3-3b50-86da-093fe334af31@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <aaa8719c-00d3-3b50-86da-093fe334af31@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/1qyIAh-qXMRF54yRe8zJd2FYBmM>
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 15:12:11 -0000

Hi Loa,

thanks for pointing that out.
I'll fix it.

thanks,
Peter

On 09/07/18 16:13 , Loa Andersson wrote:
> 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
>>
>