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

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 04 March 2021 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC03C3A1110; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:09:54 -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 94Jx5KXJenaD; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDD63A110F; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id mj10so30748119ejb.5; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 09:09:53 -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=YKTxOOczDJvywfJ6pObWWuH/UbtL6dlSu7/cbX8jOC8=; b=gJ6saB1U3NJ9cQ6WZ2xrZJ5tiwmeAca042HQeKInEyMqC7Q2uRZ/Myzcox/Ge/MFSe WbxsmfnPcIj4RrRMuKnnfjo+6/BpvMOQ9o8Jcs6iid+z/zlztiXuOTJ/B1T01Oq3UkQx W4UhFsGgi82nIS163F4zPIBoruQI8amdwSY8ld+89vcueEt9mb7k44ErV0wHO12Xgbzp W8P/tYdt75mkxCdmuUsNJh9m2tRGkxcdY9+MaG/io8vnj8gzca+8W/91KP/f3KVtT6aU ACO/0clFIslHAx+j3XmWxmw2R3t5W1nOcBTpRnYW8ToLkdiXtm4SAKTPBR0e+Oilq6j+ YsNw==
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=YKTxOOczDJvywfJ6pObWWuH/UbtL6dlSu7/cbX8jOC8=; b=hNPKEPSFjy0Qfo7JfQR0wHSP14f98/7M6xSIbJzxog5hfqChPNkzLjJJ+JFbTYXp/T 8FS5QG16wOCeKnUAiMLXIp6DMUi+TLuJSHf+Artli+2KNbKKhvpoHs0jDhTXMs+voQ6s tFHPSLYnEt9wr1pEqUNq+9gBbEB5V4QI/R7PwrNv+EQ55sqAjIGQ/Vj4HQfd7EWGcwdp hL+A1SRHcxXL0YoU1Le0rOsbHTo21H1Ax3WxfiwSqjpuZRHNB6K2FPseIhjOcUUmzTck rfm4GacjVeyIASDidn/7pMy6UXWeUle5m4AYVEqmm9dkTZKCLCLGvaXrWUbpmezqjl/T D84g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GxebtRJZ+gmipGgQOhV6K59D6cQx6LoSzKesKD40ptBg/wDfp Ub/SM2qSsYY7ebfuGrnjC1TUlobVlG6pBqfKmr0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaUxclxv4UkK4L/k06p8PjmQasoN2Q73wr42UUWYcA2FNuGlaH7epqXzHieWHwzTD3L2EjkkDEy7UB8G0o7IQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1c13:: with SMTP id k19mr5318540ejg.457.1614877790379; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 09:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:09:49 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:09:49 -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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 17:09:55 -0000

On March 3, 2021 at 6:29:28 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:



> Now, can you respond to my comment regarding the lack of clarity in using
> quotes?


I guess you mean this comment: "But I have to say that for me as a
reader the use of quotes as you suggest does not aid clarity."

Dhruv's comment was about using normative language in the appendix:

> > (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?

He is absolutely correct in suggesting that the appendix could use
different words.  As I mentioned before, the appendix is just an
informative section, a good/nice-to-have explanation for the reader.
That means that it doesn't have to be an exact transcription of the
text (which you didn't have to start with), and it can simply be an

The way I see it, using normative language in an informational
appendix is what makes the text lack clarity -- the quotes were meant
to help a little without asking you to make too many changes.  That
way it would at least be clear that the specification is made

I know we may never agree on which direction to look at clarity.  We
have already spent too much time on this.