Re: [RTG-DIR] [Last-Call] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-06

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,
thank you for your prompt reply, and my apologies for the confusion my
sloppy response caused. A couple of follow-up notes tagged GIM3>> below.
I've attached the updated working version of the draft.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 9:16 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 5:20 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dhruv,
>> thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. I've added more notes below
>> tagged GIM2>>. Attached, please find the updated working version of the
>> draft.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:41 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Greg,
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ## Major
>>>>>
>>>>> - It would be incorrect to put RFC 7056 (which is being made historic)
>>>>> in the
>>>>> "updates:" list at the top of the page. Note that, one needs to follow
>>>>> the
>>>>> "status-change" document process to mark the RFC as historic which
>>>>> should be
>>>>> triggered by the AD. The job of this I-D is to articulate the reasons
>>>>> why the
>>>>> RFC7506 should be made historic. Update section 1 and section 3
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>> Section 3 could list or refer to existing sections on why RFC 7506
>>>>> should be
>>>>> historic.
>>>>>
>>>> GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out. Updated the header accordingly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dhruv: I think this text in (1) abstract - "It reclassifies RFC 7506 as
>>> Historic..." and this text in (2) introduction "...and reclassifies RFC
>>> 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." and section 3 (3) "This document reclassifies
>>> RFC 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." are incorrect.
>>>
>>> It should stay instead that "this document explains why RFC 7560 has
>>> been reclassified as Historic" in all places. I would also suggest to
>>> update section 3 accordingly
>>>
>> GIM2>> Thank you for explaining the process to me. As I understand it,
>> reclassifying RFC 7506 will take separate efforts and time. Hence my
>> question, "Would it be more acceptable to state, "This document explains
>> why RFC 7506 should be reclassified as Historic"?
>>
>
> Dhruv: Yes! Thanks!
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I have my doubts about one more instance -
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8029#section-4.3
>>>
>>> The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value 69
>>>> [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>>
>>> GIM2>> Thank you pointing this text to me. Would the following text
>> address your concern:
>> NEW TEXT:
>>    Furthermore, this specidication updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
>>    follows:
>>
>>    OLD:
>>
>>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
>>    69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>
>>    NEW:
>>
>>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value 69
>>    [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>
>>    END
>>
>
> Dhruv: Did you forget to update the text in NEW? Except for a missing
> space after [RFC2113] there seems to be no difference between OLD and NEW!
>
GIM3>> Indeed. It is like this:


   Furthermore, this specification updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
   follows:

   OLD:

   The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
   69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.

   NEW:

   The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
   69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST NOT be set in the IP header.

   END

WDYT?

>
>
>
>>
>>> Hope you did a check on other instances of "alert" in RFC 8029.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Dhruv: I hope you did that as it would be good to get you as an expert to
> review it.
>
>
>
>> --
>>>
>>> In one edit in Section 4, where you list the OLD text from RFC 8029, do
>>> not add a reference to RFC 1122 in OLD text as this should be as listed in
>>> RFC 8029. It is good that you added reference in the NEW text!
>>>
>>>
> Dhruv: When we quote the OLD text from RFC 8029, it should be verbatim. By
> adding reference RFC 1122 [RFC1122] is making a change. Please remove
> that in OLD text, and you can add it in NEW text.
>
GIM3>> Now I got it!

>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>> Thanks!
>>> Dhruv
>>>
>>