Re: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-37: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 26 September 2019 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C201201E5; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P2xKuBqK7dRl; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3941912000F; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c4so765129edl.0; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MJJLfYeDS8Jk4b9WcD6piyxjuFHBCT+fZaosNkbDtkc=; b=mGvFah2Ng1l1ieooysYhKLdiTuOPJQzaJylDu8Eh8bWcc6lPivi5wYGHbYvAVrn/JP 4AAosjBAs6zaavDCLUGWF+EHN43OC0CLQWphaaV+Je2cTyrDJ/xUcb4jZwYq9aICAVyg eQSiFMtq7eSNY3RoOCUm5v15GqSByTrAEQZWj2xSU8kwYHlsWbhJt2Ox2dwW8aiyvH8q p3kUyDrpyotAYoambX5hKobo2hhMoB0pCIC5tlPWvSgYcYTM3wBCU24eVcH4JoVZmtfC Gc/dOv1/RR0eYFuiG/zm1J/yb0hil0vEDtzgAy/d7GKRuh99Xu7WfuWQ0tAnXlLuT3yE KZhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MJJLfYeDS8Jk4b9WcD6piyxjuFHBCT+fZaosNkbDtkc=; b=a0tCqFwzSVSMQnp5UB/b9TOt+84p+RCEusatL1yYH5XKndjNhDeWMy1eEtgO+vdoRJ qn6K0SCzlFApDPgxZpTBF/zm5g5IUalUo9TlcY68ZYgJhRDs4zz9PGT3eHZrVsHmbGwL GNaV0y01Hhhl7moL2P0tW5UvG7quMZAyFkXYtI/v+nZeuj6VL5JHK61GsQL7X8YFJ5zG hQKVa1jtpPhXNXisoDhe22isDRz3vez7WJv6+zSXFqMkmeVn2w7XFGjff2kGguP2jdBg BqjUd7jkETNPgtGk6f1TsebNYW3PNEUSwwcD3TeI9RBkU7TrqeEU3yiWpoUyrduT6hC9 QyJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUm42fd/qFZ69MzX5KIsvlKfbIMNf0sACNIJgcsumbgLy2fM7Fn e3jR+sY1GeTCWpsPEcrDT+A9fk5p7FbCJgA2LjA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3kiqoWWcreNtxesfmaEo0KMbheBq8e9eryd4SmeUQTXXIxWhGLaLMIclNy4EiVIirZ8uhnmNZh1xOzaOoYmg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c79a:: with SMTP id cw26mr5299405ejb.265.1569539915732; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:18:35 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:18:34 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Barry Leiba <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
Cc:,,, Yingzhen Qu <>, The IESG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000235a0505937cfdad"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-37: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:18:39 -0000

On September 26, 2019 at 1:37:47 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker ( wrote:



— Section 2.3 —
In the last two paragraphs of the section, one uses “should” advertise and
other uses “SHOULD” advertise. They should either both be BCP 14 key words,
both not.

In this case, instead of the change to “SHOULD” (which you made in -38), we
need to go the other way: s/SHOULD/should

This is from my AD review:

- - - -
506   If an implementation does not support per level configuration for a
507   parameter modeled with per level configuration, the implementation
508   SHOULD advertise a deviation to announce the non-support of the
509   level-1 and level-2 containers.

511   Finally, if an implementation supports per level configuration but
512   does not support the level-1-2 configuration, it SHOULD also
513   advertise a deviation.

[major] "SHOULD advertise a deviation"  According to rfc7950: "Deviations
MUST never be part of a published standard"; I realize that this document
doesn't include one, but it Normatively recommends their use.
- - - -

I missed in -36 the fact that only the first SHOULD was changed.