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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 12:06 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 6C56E124C04; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:06:57 -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 bH1dMnwO56wz; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0543E12D7F8; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4062; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531138016; x=1532347616; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/G1F6ATGKgNU2lWKdDFfFbMoKG9SbTUUhFbuzqyQGs8=; b=B4uSLK448wLM16bwFY78zZHmc6fP9iNLFFS6NES4lE8oqCljruKtfmAi KiAgTQqRkDXtsY+SFj4O9Sxu1Yq3zcirh7J+yJqoB6pcVx8UvGYCVAGdX r9hKpUNKf5g1ge06uwuQFA+BVa9S2GZ0UX6TJsCH1ISI49nKY4Fx6TM2O k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CfAQB4R0Nb/4cNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJgWEoCoNwiASMNIFlIoM4kXoUgWYLhGwCF4ItITQYAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBAQJtKIU3AQUjEUUQAgEIGAICJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0FgyCCAKkDghyIRYE?= =?us-ascii?q?6gQuHY4IVgQ8nDIJchEIgGBeCajGCJAKHYooIh2UJAo8ijV2RaQIREwGBJB0?= =?us-ascii?q?4gVJwFWUBgj6QUm+NN4EaAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,330,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="140412513"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2018 11:36:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w69Bafei004796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:36:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:36:41 -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 07:36:41 -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///kswA=
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:36:41 +0000
Message-ID: <8A3E4F27-F540-424E-8617-2C986FD3DA00@cisco.com>
References: <6FD38147-EA21-4336-B436-1072BF449DE2@huawei.com> <5B43276F.2040405@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B43276F.2040405@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: <760471CD27669644B23E423518E3A912@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/GetXYF4_4zAiJiYYl3mr4wRKLDE>
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 12:06:58 -0000

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
    >