Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,

It does and thanks for the update.

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Sent: 17 July 2018 17:32
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

V1 has been posted with the additional text.

Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report.

    Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
> <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> 
> Ketan -
> 
> I don't want to be overly prescriptive here.
> The need for supporting backwards compatibility is limited by the 
> amount of existing deployment by implementations that chose the 
> "length 5" solution - and hopefully any such issues will be 
> short-lived as the problematic implementations get upgraded.
> 
> But If there is a need for backwards compatibility it is possible that 
> both transmit/receive are required. This is a judgment call for 
> implementers and the new text in the draft is not meant to tell 
> implementers what they SHOULD do - only to remind them that this may 
> be an issue which they will have to consider. If they think receive 
> only is sufficient that's fine, but it is beyond what I think the draft needs to say.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:29 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
> > <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for 
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> >
> > Hi Les,
> >
> > This sounds good. I would suggest being liberal in receive (i.e.
> > accept and interpret the incorrect encoding) and there is no need to 
> > send that erroneous encoding.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Sent: 17 July 2018 13:30
> > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
> > <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for 
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> >
> > Ketan -
> >
> > Thanx for taking on the role of shepherd.
> >
> > I am attaching some proposed diffs which I think addresses your concern.
> > Let me know if this suffices and we can publish an update.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:55 AM
> > > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
> > > <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; 
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I was reviewing this draft as the Shepherd. It is a fairly simple 
> > > and straightforward bis update to RFC7810 to fix an encoding error.
> > >
> > > There is one point that I would like the authors and WG to consider.
> > >
> > > The draft in the appendix talks about two interpretations of the 
> > > erroneous sub- TLVs and from the conversation on the list I get 
> > > the impression that there are at least two implementations out 
> > > there which did different interpretations. Do we want to consider 
> > > putting in a suggestion (i.e. not normative perhaps) that 
> > > implementations updated to this specifications accept the sub-TLV 
> > > with the Reserved field included and size 5? So they don't 
> > > consider such an encoding as error or
> > malformed on reception?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> > > Sent: 18 June 2018 17:38
> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps 
> > > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
> > >
> > > Hi Les,
> > > Yes - the Working Group Last call has completed. We'll find a 
> > > shepherd and request publication.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Acee
> > >
> > > On 6/15/18, 10:49 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >     WG chairs -
> > >
> > >     Can we consider WG last call completed? (It has been more than 
> > > 3
> > > weeks...)
> > >
> > >     Would really like to get this small but important correction 
> > > published ASAP
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lsr mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr