Hi All, > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. correct. This also was pointed out at the time of editing and submission of this draft. The WG agreed to move on without res-pinning th whole reviwe process exactly for the reasons above. > 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. +1. Thanks. s. > > 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> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@xxxxxxxxx>; Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; lsr-chairs@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@xxxxxxxxxx>; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 > > 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. > > > 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.
