Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16 UTC
Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
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 6A3B4C15952A for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2022 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.575, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=kKgMJS6n; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=eg56177j
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qd-q4XRUU4tT for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2022 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFCFCC1594BB for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2022 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24AE8Raj018507; Tue, 10 May 2022 11:16:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=iziRFyiWi7r3tVEju4xxxx6Blpaxs+RNDI8AMgX8v90=; b=kKgMJS6nix3w0L4xz/pqkdQYpiTQgLzCbdoCx02ULjjk5lYaaaQKQNBSNZZlxzceQ7gP NlWZG4qUajd1AhOuLyEnx2KSNpyj+3ROPUWYZGA21/paRrDWqLrwuwb3EjSJdrtdhDBg 74VK2zEJu1YQzbDgtmBEaWI7tpnoVnfoV5EhbNu8ZrO+OEwVr/IZtbLYtLaJFMMGNnhI VNo/sdzZBxDdG5QUvu1N+P5pd1WfuKxtgTL1sqE/P0gp2HByRpQI9CFnO93POLxTdtH7 oVkioXAm/nCTHGkze+VohRDSAIBI0JCcmGHQm5IpaG1237OfmJzs0auBkOmyvhRIUQI2 DA==
Received: from nam10-bn7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn7nam10lp2105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.70.105]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3fysj5rk02-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 May 2022 11:16:18 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Kn/H9BRSz3WHTDi6PiUn3dbvlifcBYKaPmxUI322FwOyBb5G2+UpuO6HWz51xuZIvJh2rJI5tnRx1Pt6IgBmE2yOptPAmycv3XXsSIrgUuGL46zs3o5Da1dUY/PE8OGxqNhPxOpsq6o0BUcqbvsUf2GufPTaWVOd6tjn3+3yKaFG5JSlEwuRNhZarjv5wmsBLPc8H/utckNdT4EVm+wwvunG/+hBs/nw4UzU+TUmHsEjy3ni6ZTXiCCYb+GnFKnMIB5PKtvYrR/p+bIM/EnReHSl6Z2E+q0SQVrNdGdJZngW1RGVz6tU/4vrLr8rip90vu+Kt1nBAlMVbjxdFszOlw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=iziRFyiWi7r3tVEju4xxxx6Blpaxs+RNDI8AMgX8v90=; b=UA4prjRyfbP6eMgnAqU31p0jWOgbeS4QwVH6hepNMpxNDWQsw3PGmYQZQIWJIs0w0GkFZ4MsUEGwNrMMpQvfBkz5xlqEE1jk2QktR5FIi1iHAtKdKH/G972owhiMFnt2QQK1h/aynjHlEmHZiSV66HUGc5KJw5tHUrmajQjOKI77nOutaKKhh4ujHIOzFh8bRD9b0EoOU5gBHdYP0G8vo6fUnzrQBRBnwsu1rfLgpxtcBmbYNbIYCN67QHeoKA0AvLtVi2kjeLBniZIhdEo4OiPoS6nUXhNLSMltvhHp7nKXydhFWI7kgg+sNx2hWXOTPvS8K6wds+aRNfmMhD5QDg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=iziRFyiWi7r3tVEju4xxxx6Blpaxs+RNDI8AMgX8v90=; b=eg56177jRqqevCQLULRFSWwCH7VPAt6ZvOfUeMJcg/4cxaM6kKHvGXURhZyf2iPRHh7yPeBIbqk/GAuZkasPItWy93ZCjsgu2PaLf7v5t3K6GlKPO2zC5lr2sLkpf+wmfFgI/T6rO90NGS0j+cpBoNEgj8B0F9k5LlROyayH+jk=
Received: from MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:c4::20) by SN6PR05MB5295.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:805:c0::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5250.12; Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:15 +0000
Received: from MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fc4c:13b7:a19d:5367]) by MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fc4c:13b7:a19d:5367%7]) with mapi id 15.20.5250.012; Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:15 +0000
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "stefano@previdi.net" <stefano@previdi.net>, "wim.henderickx@nokia.com" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "martin.vigoureux@nokia.com" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
Thread-Index: AQHYZIm9JdgIRpmaU021vzwA8kjSb60YV+6AgAATDwA=
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:15 +0000
Message-ID: <40B47E1F-4FEB-4636-A3A8-396F10E878D4@juniper.net>
References: <20210705214721.1124AF40759@rfc-editor.org> <AD71204D-0864-4894-AC5E-F64C19BAA2F0@cisco.com> <7D49EECC-6B94-4FB4-A8CD-255132A41179@juniper.net> <BY5PR11MB4337121E9A78EDCD90E4EB57C1C99@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337121E9A78EDCD90E4EB57C1C99@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1)
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fe348869-e984-42c0-c97f-08da32b12bd7
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB5295:EE_
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR05MB52956AC36F6CB2D7ABFCCF78AAC99@SN6PR05MB5295.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230001)(4636009)(366004)(38100700002)(38070700005)(8936002)(966005)(6486002)(6916009)(83380400001)(54906003)(122000001)(316002)(186003)(508600001)(66446008)(8676002)(91956017)(71200400001)(6506007)(36756003)(4326008)(64756008)(6512007)(76116006)(2906002)(166002)(26005)(53546011)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(2616005)(33656002)(5660300002)(86362001)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_40B47E1F4FEB4636A3A8396F10E878D4junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fe348869-e984-42c0-c97f-08da32b12bd7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 May 2022 18:16:15.2196 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: X+5cmKg4dyYcODi++Trq9XFMUgHN0nacvC8+kCcgwANTZPCzhh52zQSR8BbA9ZpZ
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB5295
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: j7SP5FT1KLULQ_lpuCMMnCWQjLxONVNU
X-Proofpoint-GUID: j7SP5FT1KLULQ_lpuCMMnCWQjLxONVNU
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.858,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-05-10_05,2022-05-10_01,2022-02-23_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2205100079
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_15rAwElfpGLDRxqjUuUJHiGdrQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:27 -0000
Hi Les, Yes that’s about right, except I think the changes could be processed either as a bis or as a so-called “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially similar to the errata you submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW: blocks, for example) that Updates: RFC 8919. The IESG has in the past discussed whether and how to avoid problems such as you describe, but so far to no effect. Because of such concerns — that even a closely-focused bis may be treated as open season for review comments unrelated to the substance of the actual changes — it’s pretty common practice for authors to use patch RFCs instead. IMO these are ugly to have floating around our document set, but our process creates a strong incentive to use them. As such, if you wanted to follow that approach I wouldn’t be against it, on the other hand if you view the bis as “the right thing” and you want to DTRT, I’d do what I can to encourage the IESG to keep their comments focused and not treat it as open season. Hope that helps. Do let me know if we agree in principle on this as a way forward; if so I’ll close the errata. Thanks, —John On May 10, 2022, at 1:08 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote: John – If I interpret the essence of your comments correctly, you are expressing a preference that the proposed changes be handled via a BIS draft rather than an errata. I don’t have an objection to that – and in some ways it makes sense to me. However, I have not been pleased (in general) with the way that the IETF – and in particular the IESG review process– handles BIS drafts. A BIS is created to address specific issues. But, based on past experience, IESG review considers a BIS draft as an opportunity to revisit the draft in its entirety – even when that was clearly NOT the stated goal during WG review. In a case such as this, I think the lack of agreed upon scope may be a major issue. Any words of wisdom on this? 😊 Les From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:20 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>; stefano@previdi.net<mailto:stefano@previdi.net>; wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com>; John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) -rfc-editor Hi All, This kind of erratum requires careful consideration and I’d appreciate it if the WG were to weigh in. In particular, without reviewing the RFC and mailing list carefully (which I’ve not yet done, but will) it’s unclear to me if the proposed erratum meets this criterion: “Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC.” [1] So to verify this erratum we’d need one of two things: 1. A solid reason why the erratum is a straight-up bug. An example of an erratum where this is unambiguously true is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6866<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6866__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DGhKp6_DX170iyhoOlLE83y4AOYlegZ0jktQIBmgAMFC0mcnlUyBUYf5awQk13zMkSQa__MPA_KloQ$>, where the RFC refers to a YANG leaf that simply doesn’t exist. At first reading, the present erratum isn’t obviously a bug. 2. Clear and unambiguous evidence in the written record (mainly, the mailing list archives) that the WG consensus was for what the erratum says, and not for the text in the RFC. Importantly, the authors’ saying “that is not what was intended” isn’t good enough to establish this. What must be established is what the WG had consensus for. The bar is intentionally high for introducing changes to RFCs via the errata process. If neither of the above criteria can be fulfilled then I have to mark the erratum as rejected. In that case the recourse would be to write and process a short RFC that updates RFC 8919. Thanks, —John [1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DGhKp6_DX170iyhoOlLE83y4AOYlegZ0jktQIBmgAMFC0mcnlUyBUYf5awQk13zMkSQa__NcYIxF0g$> On Jul 6, 2021, at 4:27 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote: LSR WG, This Errata is an outcome of the Flex-Algorithm discussion - is there any further comment? Thanks, Acee On 7/5/21, 5:48 PM, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8919, "IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V8pyJglE5nwp2XEvvZFMfNsgQt2U2UKisYFncXzo7IFZNV_oakn0wjZ0Ak22xg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V8pyJglE5nwp2XEvvZFMfNsgQt2U2UKisYFncXzo7IFZNV_oakn0wjZ0Ak22xg$> -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Section 4.2: OLD If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored. (Later in Section 4.2) OLD If link attributes are advertised associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications, then any standard application and/or any user-defined application is permitted to use that set of link attributes so long as there is not another set of attributes advertised on that same link that is associated with a non-zero-length Application Identifier Bit Mask with a matching Application Identifier Bit set. Section 6.2 OLD Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications are usable by any application, subject to the restrictions specified in Section 4.2. If support for a new application is introduced on any node in a network in the presence of such advertisements, these advertisements are permitted to be used by the new application. If this is not what is intended, then existing advertisements MUST be readvertised with an explicit set of applications specified before a new application is introduced. Corrected Text -------------- Section 4.2 NEW If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored. When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the link attribute advertisements in the sub-TLV. (Later in Section 4.2) NEW Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications. Such link attribute advertisements MUST be used by standard applications and/or user defined applications when no link attribute advertisements with a non-zero-length Application Identifier Bit Mask and a matching Application Identifier Bit set are present for a given link. Otherwise, such link attribute advertisements MUST NOT be used. Section 6.2 NEW Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications. Such link attribute advertisements MUST be used by standard applications and/or user defined applications when no link attribute advertisements with a non-zero-length Application Identifier Bit Mask and a matching Application Identifier Bit set are present for a given link. Otherwise, such link attribute advertisements MUST NOT be used. Notes ----- RFC 8919 defines advertising link attributes with zero length Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM) and zero length User Defined ApplicationBit Mask (UDABM) as a means of advertising link attributes that can be used by any application. However, the text uses the word "permitted", suggesting that the use of such advertisements is "optional". Such an interpretation could lead to interoperability issues and is not what was intended. The replacement text below makes explicit the specific conditions when such advertisements MUST be used and the specific conditions under which they MUST NOT be used. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8919 (draft-ietf-isis-te-app-19) -------------------------------------- Title : IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes Publication Date : October 2020 Author(s) : L. Ginsberg, P. Psenak, S. Previdi, W. Henderickx, J. Drake Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Link State Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (66… bruno.decraene