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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 AA940130EBB; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=ham 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 SOThMBdnSZNR; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AEEC130E91; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5494; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531139395; x=1532348995; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=v7De81HwpF3cz/G34nql8/aZJumP5WswOiyLXty+kCQ=; b=UIErrwMZQOqViQdq1Ktol9/2E1J7phDpcwbivj4StDSsRWnkAFy0yHV9 S9ShSDXaCVecpdCmVhD600nyO7ZXBcb3H3jk6iTzU5AasWVJ/Py6ik5Kx K8goYY9CtGXy5+UOiERod8w7L7EAmkCchAJsQE9k6zphXDydo0miXAn+I M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CfAQDkVENb/4gNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJgWEoCoNwiASMNIFlIoM4kXoUgWYLhGwCF4IuITQYAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBAQJtKIU3AQUjEUUQAgEIGAICJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0FgyCCAKkfghyIRYE?= =?us-ascii?q?6gQuHY4IVgQ8nDIJchEIgGBeCajGCJAKHYpFtCQKPIoFCjBuHfYlsAhETAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?kHTiBUnAVZQGCPpBSb403gRoBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,330,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="421174292"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2018 12:29:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w69CTsD8017847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:29:54 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:29:53 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:29:53 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "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>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review
Thread-Index: AQHUFwzESVuP/IhseEmo//2PfJJvzqSG32iA///kswCAAFDagP//vgSA
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:29:53 +0000
Message-ID: <13338F6E-0DFD-4D80-8719-1947514933B9@cisco.com>
References: <6FD38147-EA21-4336-B436-1072BF449DE2@huawei.com> <5B43276F.2040405@cisco.com> <8A3E4F27-F540-424E-8617-2C986FD3DA00@cisco.com> <5B43545B.7070403@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B43545B.7070403@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <9924CB6EE067D24D857C57DD7B7BC22F@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/AqZ53rlWO7wCpVqBhOo-e8nju6s>
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 12:29:57 -0000

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
    >      >
    >
    >
    >