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

Alvaro Retana <> Wed, 03 March 2021 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E403A197B; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:05:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30ReMRhMhIlE; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FA43A1975; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id bm21so25862900ejb.4; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:05:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ivtrjGbkktWMjf1qAzHyADy+PnGKUjyO5MWnkYNANL8=; b=qeuvf4Kn2RWndmfaHsoF/L5+N0e617T+MN5JyEUNRVad0bXPQB/s6TmuU+BedKK5XN 2OilzsmqDgeSqSnx3fwd/XBXeYpTXEgtnSfQT/MkNsU7BaaQF8bIEcDSFuxscDlJRicM pO4y/WNerCandAtXGoN7KuKrZS2GfDlY6RwqC4UY9x3YBF0XMODyf69//kybhagEvHxm IpLDmeG7yhnEHWb026r1tuxY3cn4c5hwrQ4GQXmSlYg7PTlA0vvALlpdC4NipDmKIsgo wwv+MQBX6VDiGokl/Tga6tuUM84iuWOfRNUWKxyCP/ctbmIFcsVt0kvNIJ3EwDbLPTyP xAxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ivtrjGbkktWMjf1qAzHyADy+PnGKUjyO5MWnkYNANL8=; b=t/PolsQHhHecT132kAWzXKyzDBdRMYUJizF6jYPEpQtwDCmjjPOrXl7PWJ/+QvvIKl fZAzkDHGd5R5LcmwiCX3TM5XO5EGTFXscPayGKe7pOTmRcaTf7Lsug9ziEpaHp98lYrf mj+GRUOhKTUDhD51uO3otpC9bxLyX2sEF+0mQ84GNEwk8AMhNcdoO18f2I4lMBWxRGsJ /TvxJX0s/gBiEZhEF5eCqTnv7Y2eOyvIGNNuRSPJ0saKK2xC0VP1sakJ3d8pVfuQ9RiB QgjTUzjagg5x4RD8O4vthJtUiz1rmmsJomBM9fJNbHhDX2GgkHeoHD0wCjUj2kCyoi32 6uGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HcpPGkfW335XpPadn8C8M9StcgE9Sm3KcTMPYOz7ghVuQRRCW H6c3mt/1bWZNjnHS+MZ1FflOqZlItHBQDNsI6bk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLQl9x25wMmEE3mmPCS8EValEEbhKs5/uewh3WHa7XyJaXRnEdCiM2SuMe2WjD2/PKkDkxJdloFfhWgaum/cU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1c13:: with SMTP id k19mr459759ejg.457.1614801946846; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:05:46 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:05:45 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, Christian Hopps <>, Dhruv Dhody <>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "TEAS WG (" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 20:05:56 -0000

On March 3, 2021 at 2:47:38 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody



> > (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.

There's no specific prohibition against it -- in fact, sometimes an
appendix can be normative so it is completely appropriate to have
normative language.

In this case, the appendix is informative and the normative text is
only reflecting what the main body of the draft says (which is where
the specification is).  To avoid confusion about which piece of text
is normative, and keep consistency, I would recommend using quotes in
the appendix:

   1.  The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in the
   Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (134) if available.

   1.  The "Router ID SHOULD be identical" to the value advertised in the
   Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (134) if available (Section 3.1).