Re: [Lsr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 38C15130FA0; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:52:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 7KDIj_CBaAbM; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 711D3130FA5; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.120] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBK4qlH7043392 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:52:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545281570; bh=eJCXaICHn+lxh4nqJ99lejYyNIsDwdnULegKYgQmi70=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=FwtMNxFgbyWlHx04Ee3ORGMe+mX2qielCmmp5RwcI36OFcI3Fr0ldSmnaSI5HMmDh w4FQDNfRkTRx9YrlTAoON4odxP2nIcdymS/PsuVtm7dGNYbkQRfDUJfGQcmfDuxlzo 8XCnBC5qPAbk7x5qUxm6jy8RHLHttd8rVJmmj+O8=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.120]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16C50)
In-Reply-To: <c883c32f95b94b5f8d56fa6c46b5a006@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:52:46 -0600
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7A2DBD5-FC68-447D-AFDF-FF954B827918@nostrum.com>
References: <154526344075.2240.12361463298671237230.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c883c32f95b94b5f8d56fa6c46b5a006@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/PXMYSz3NNFjELGI1JY35kuURNsU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:52:56 -0000

Thanks, Les, that is a perfectly good explanation.

Ben.

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 10:26 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> Ben -
> 
> When Errata ID: 5293 was posted we quickly realized that we had an interoperability issue due to the unintended ambiguousness of RFC 7810. In order to help resolve this ASAP I volunteered to be editor of a bis version. 
> In that role I have tried my best to move this document along as quickly as possible to help reduce the possibility that additional implementations might come along that also did not behave as intended. (Has only taken 9 months so far. :-) )
> 
> Given I was not one of the original authors of RFC 7810 - and that we were not making any substantive revision to the text - merely correcting what was just a cut and paste error -  I did not feel it appropriate to remove any of the authors of RFC 7810. After all 98% of the text is identical to RFC 7810.
> 
> So, you have 6 authors on this document. I think this is reasonable under the circumstances.
> 
>   Les
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>;
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:51 PM
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
>> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>> <ketant@cisco.com>;; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; Ketan
>> Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>;; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04:
>> (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Why does this need to least more than the usual 5 authors, especially since
>> there is already a contributors section that says the entries should be treated
>> as co-authors?
>> 
>