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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 20 December 2018 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF8D130E0A; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, ketant@cisco.com, lsr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154527688937.2072.12996887319475512262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:49 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/s_SvByk4CdPMQHOtBLYCkAKlsz0>
Subject: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 03:35:01 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk 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:


The nice tidy diff against RFC 7810 and description in Appendix A made this
document very easy to review; thank you!

That said, I think that there are some lingering factual errors that will
require some text changes; in particular, relating to the IANA
registrations.  E.g,. Section 2 shouldn't say "this document registers new
IS-IS TE sub-TLVs" and "this document registers several sub-TLVs", since
the sub-TLVs are not new.  Similarly, one could make a case that the IANA
considerations should request for IANA to update the registrations for the
indicated sub-TLVs to point to this document instead of RFC 7810.

(I'm still balloting No Objection and not Discuss, because I trust the
responsible AD to make the right thing happen.)