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

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>; Acee Lindem (acee)
    > <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; 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>; Acee Lindem (acee)
    > <acee@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; 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>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;
    > > 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>; Christian Hopps
    > > <chopps@chopps.org>; 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