Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis

Hi Les,
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:17 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Dhruv -
>
>
>
> Thanx for reviewing/supporting the draft.
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 2:09 AM
>
> > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
>
> > Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; teas-ads@ietf.org; TEAS WG
>
> > (teas@ietf.org) <teas@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-
>
> > ads@ietf.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > I went through the diff with RFC5316. The changes look good. Some
>
> > minor comments -
>
> >
>
> > (1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the
>
> > appendix? The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the
>
> > appendix? Also wondering if other changes (IANA, nits) could be listed
>
> > or we could call it "major change" :)
>
>
>
> [Les:] I personally do not have an issue using the normative keywords in
> the Appendix. Not doing so I think might trigger someone to ask if there is
> some inconsistency between the Appendix text and the text in the body of
> the draft. 😊
>
> If you know of some prohibition against using such keywords in an Appendix
> please provide the reference.
>
>
>
[Dhruv]: To me, the usefulness of this appendix is to find out what has
changed in this bis. Very useful for any reviewer or implementor. The other
option is to do rfcdiff :(

So in this context, I provided the above comments suggesting rewording the
text as a list of changes with rewording. Adding a reference to the
relevant section could be useful too. Feel free to ignore, if you think
this adds no value!

> The IANA change is a consequence of the introduction pf new  IPv6 Local
> ASBR identifier sub-TLV. I do not see the need to mention it in the
> Appendix.
>
>
>
> I do not understand your comment about "major change". Could you explain?
>
> [Dhruv]: The current text says -

Appendix A.  Changes to RFC 5316

   This document makes the following changes to RFC 5316.

This gives an impression (to me) that *all* changes made are listed here.
Since that is not what is happening here, I suggested calling it -
Important or Major or Motivation to update RFC 5316, whatever you like....

>
>
> >
>
> > (2) IPv6 Local ASBR ID and IPv6 Router ID is used interchangeably i.e.
>
> > table in IANA section 6.2 does not use the same name as the table in
>
> > section 3.1
>
> >
>
>
>
> [Les:] The use of " IPv6 Router ID" in Section 3.1 is inconsistent. I
> will fix that.
>
> Thanx for pointing that out.
>
>
>

Thanks!
Dhruv

>    Les
>
>
>
> > Hope this helps!
>
> >
>
> > Thanks!
>
> >
>
> > Dhruv
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:00 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Hi LSR and TEAS,
>
> > >
>
> > > This begins a joint WG last call for:
>
> > >
>
> > >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
>
> > >
>
> > > Please discuss any issues on the LSR mailing list. The WGLC will end
> March
>
> > 3, 2021.
>
> > >
>
> > > Authors, please indicate wether you are aware of any IPR related to
> this
>
> > document to the list.
>
> > >
>
> > > Thanks,
>
> > > Chris, Acee, (Lou and Pavan).
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > Teas mailing list
>
> > > Teas@ietf.org
>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Lsr mailing list
>
> > Lsr@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>