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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 CEEB2130E6D; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 UpGHcFMxhx8s; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3553A130E34; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531862237; x=1533071837; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=UMVQwoQJF3S+/U2jFMIr8H/Oa7MUQ8Wf37/NoNTQk9U=; b=Z6Y73VBHSAV65mZanqYYgFVITXQC72EHjupcmw15B0yHrfKwSVoNX5O4 IqzJOniULlnT+tJ6/0sEPUCFx1EUUoBodIVRFZMnEfEyYtkxaKZ0V0X0/ X5sCcTdroLmkDfqjDagNPR2mteALNQGyoliZ/MwY/lxyP315i+PwQ/OVv k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoBwDvW05b/5JdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJY38oCoNzlEGCDIM4kgGBegsYC4RJAheCWSE2FgECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQECbRwMhTYBAQEBAwEBGwYROgsMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICJQsVCAgCBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBRuDBQGBfw+rHYEuiiIFgQuHd4IWgREngmqDGQEBgTkaDReCajGCJAKZXAk?= =?us-ascii?q?CjyWBQ4wih32JcAIRFIEkJAUsgVJwFTsqAYI+giUXiFmFPm+KSQIFH4EIgRo?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,367,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="144837373"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jul 2018 21:17:16 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6HLHF9W030896 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:17:16 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:17:15 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:17:15 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr-ads@ietf.org" <lsr-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
Thread-Index: AQHT8qrGJqItV2jLOk6/uKLGp9vNZ6RhijtQgAUplACALWYVgP//58jwgABk/gD//9Y7MIAABNUA
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:17:15 +0000
Message-ID: <645AE1B0-8EEF-46C4-879D-E93B4AF12808@cisco.com>
References: <87y3gatmql.fsf@chopps.org> <45c18832cc9143f9b6fff0c1da4b742c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <6623B634-A565-454C-AD4E-E2DE28C89B93@cisco.com> <4dbe9a99763d4d39a320fcf498303eda@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <14116bedbaae4aa78a36add828f9429d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <ffb980f5324d48fbb78f455520efbbd5@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <7e2032fa396b4f89b57c64fd4cbc4d7a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7e2032fa396b4f89b57c64fd4cbc4d7a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.123.54]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <DCD81387F344544F81B5E3687B2C2AB8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/nB8aR8sUHMDfVLIpBQ_yBixZdR8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 17 Jul 2018 21:17:23 -0000

FWIW - I agree with Les. We really don't want to support both interpretations of the ambiguous encoding. 
Thanks,
Acee 

On 7/17/18, 5:06 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:

    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) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee)
    > <acee@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; lsr@ietf.org
    > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
    > 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) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee)
    > <acee@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; lsr@ietf.org
    > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
    > 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) <acee@cisco.com>om>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>;
    > > lsr@ietf.org
    > > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
    > > 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 <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
    > > Sent: 18 June 2018 17:38
    > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps
    > > <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; lsr@ietf.org
    > > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
    > > 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)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
    > 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
    > > Lsr@ietf.org
    > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr