|
Alvaro – I am not in agreement with your POV. The work undertaken for this revision was very specifically to address Errata ID: 5293 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810)
. This was deemed critical because the format of several sub-TLVs was incorrectly specified and we learned that this resulted in an interoperability problem because some implementations chose to include the unneeded reserved field and used a sub-TLV length
of 5 whereas other implementations omitted the Reserved field and used the specified length of 4. We wanted to fasttrack this change to avoid further interoperability issues. Just prior to preparing for last call Errata ID: 5486 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486) was
posted. As this was only an editorial change we decided to address that as well. There was never an intent to review/alter any other portion of the document. Rather we constrained the changes precisely so that we could publish a corrected
version of the RFC ASAP. Your argument that since we are obsoleting RFC 7810 the entire document is fair game is not consistent with the agreed upon scope of the changes. The WG never agreed to open up the document for general revision and I do not believe it should be within the purview of IESG review to alter the scope of the
work the WG agreed to take on. Suggesting that rather than issue a new version of RFC7810 we should issue a smaller document only with the corrections is a viable option – but IMO makes an
unnecessary mess of things. As an aside, it is quite frustrating to me that it is almost 9 months since this work was started and we still have yet to complete it. Taking this long to publish
a non-controversial and much needed editorial revision is much too long. Though I appreciate we are getting closer, I think this does not speak well of us as an organization. Opening up the document to general review can do nothing but delay this further –
making it more likely that additional non-interoperable implementations may be written. Yoshi (or any other IETF participant) is free at any time to raise questions about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes are needed.
But that is not within the scope of this work. Les From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx) 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.
|
