Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Les:

You are right in pointing out that the changes made to rfc7810 are the ones
mentioned in the appendix.  That was the motivation that originated this
work.

However, this document doesn’t just modify rfc7810, it formally declares it
Obsolete.  That indicates that we (the WG, etc.) are opening up the whole
document for review/comments…which obviously means that Yoshi’s comments
are not out of scope.  The WG didn’t change anything else (which is ok),
but the IETF Last Call exists to include cross-area review and to allow
others (e.g. non-WG participants) to comment.

In any case, it seems to me that Yoshi’s comments are clarifying questions
which may not require changes to the document itself. But I’ll leave that
discussion/decision to him and to the TSV ADs.


Note that if what is wanted (by the WG) is to Update rfc7810 (and not
Obsolete it), and constrain the text to be reviewed/commented on, then this
is not the right document.  That document would have contained only the
changes.  We’re still in time to change the direction.  I’m explicitly
cc’ing the lsr-chairs so they can make any needed clarification.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 -
let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is
common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810).

While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are
out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing
is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A
Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope.

If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance
of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you
to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are
also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to
be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such
changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can
understand why.