Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05: (with COMMENT)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 15 February 2018 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A914612AF6E for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 TL9npbid16Xy for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE0C712AF77 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CMOut01 (unknown [10.0.90.82]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FDF4004F for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:30:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id ApWF1x00y2SSUrH01pWJC5; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:30:18 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Rf/gMxlv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=KBJgRKikYynPjDm1F4wA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1ZiY9bgpWmNF36PIpWYtHnLhPxWdnNcY5ydOHmR4KBU=; b=nvUXuwf7Kncb/lbll32Fk9OUwC AZ8qgvvieJwpdfFo6aOvmKxtu8cjB1bHV+a025yPXiyRRK/EeU/FpjmYJ6I66o4fMHEdzizlubs8E JGi8BM8Fn8f0nn0FSKoHv9QjE;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:42270 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1em8NL-003KMz-Bl; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:30:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05: (with COMMENT)
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <151793746860.28182.11937072048180469773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <43744c04-679b-bc9b-f2a3-2402c634b289@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:30:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <151793746860.28182.11937072048180469773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1em8NL-003KMz-Bl
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:42270
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 24
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/jxH-7Ez1WjxxoTm_la8SSo2LW9o>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:30:21 -0000

Hi Alvaro,


On 2/6/2018 12:17 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This document references/augments rfc7223.  It should reference rfc7223bis
> instead.
This has been done in rev -06 of the document (kudos to Acee)
> The examples in Appendix B still show the interfaces-state subtree,
> but the main text doesn't.
Acee handled this too in the update.

>   Are there any other changes in rfc7223bis that
> would impact this document?

Don't think so.
Thanks for the comments!
Lou