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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 12:26 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 B945E130DFC; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:26:08 -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_HIGH=-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 7A7XTQC6dRKX; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:26:07 -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 77749130E91; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3297; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531139167; x=1532348767; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TEL4POPELvFjpIHbOcrQstwg6Ek5NIhL/X3loSxNJLk=; b=Gv0m2pi+fNcfNJ3e3eDb7FpW7lcuACltLY3UiRx8ks/JXzUuDWVUHZ3H nhmLaXyCIHmsnoorBC93Ig1tpWT7pcJzwNuHFlY66c3SrMI2QsrrO2StH GSLpB/RAjzNuyAaaJxiItQP5sDXeYMyZEdr8mf3T7gStOuhckNNshAv3F w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,330,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="5003805"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2018 12:26:04 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.38] ([10.147.24.38]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w69CQ3Bi022605; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:26:04 GMT
Message-ID: <5B43545B.7070403@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:26:03 +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: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@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>
In-Reply-To: <8A3E4F27-F540-424E-8617-2C986FD3DA00@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/KiSyPp-eFUXLFsZ1CGZgNqlvHAo>
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 12:26:09 -0000

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
>      >
>
>
>