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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:17 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> (Copying Mirja as well since one portion of my reply relates to her
> comment)
>
> Warren -
>
> Inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:10 PM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ketan
> > Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Warren Kumari 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:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I do have a question and a suggestion:
> >
> > 1: From the shepherd writeup:
> > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> > and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
> >
> >     Pending Response at WG adoption:
> >     Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward
> >     Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils
> >
> >     There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC.
> > ---
> > I'm not sure I really understand what happened, and if they ever replied
> - I'll
> > trust that the AD did the right thing.
> >
>
> [Les:] And so will I. :-)
>
> > 2: The abstract says: This document obsoletes RFC 7810.
> > Once this is published it won't be clear that this is a -bis. It might be
> > useful to include something like: This document obsoletes RFC 7810 (see
> the
> > Appendix for details). (if the RFC editor will allow it that is :-))
> >
> [Les:] When the document is published the following things will happen:
>
> RFC7810 will get updated to include a line in the header that says:
> "Obsoleted by RFCxxxx"
> RFCtobe (this document) will retain "Obsoletes RFC7810" in the header and
> the existing text in the abstract will also be retained.
>
> Surely that is enough (as well as being standard practice).
>
>
If I've already read RFC7810, I'd certainly like to be able to look at the
abstract / obsoleted tab, see that Appendix A has the summary of what
changed, and then know what / if I have to reread in this doc.
But, this is just a comment / suggestion, feel free it ignore it...



>
> > I also agree with Mirja's comments.
>
> [Les:] Apologies to Mirja for not responding to her comment.
> She suggested reference to RFCs such as RFC3393.
>
> RFC 7810 referenced RFC6374 and RFC6375 - and this document retains those
> references.
> We believe this adequately covers the "how to calculate" topic.
>
>    Les
>
> >
>
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf