Subject: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:09:55 -0800

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have a question and a suggestion:

1: From the shepherd writeup:
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

    Pending Response at WG adoption:
    Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward
    Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils

    There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC.
---
I'm not sure I really understand what happened, and if they ever replied - I'll
trust that the AD did the right thing.

2: The abstract says: This document obsoletes RFC 7810.
Once this is published it won't be clear that this is a -bis. It might be
useful to include something like: This document obsoletes RFC 7810 (see the
Appendix for details). (if the RFC editor will allow it that is :-))

I also agree with Mirja's comments.

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:17:48 +0000

(Copying Mirja as well since one portion of my reply relates to her comment)

Warren -

Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:10 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Ketan
> Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 

[Les:] And so will I. :-)

> Appendix for details). (if the RFC editor will allow it that is :-))
[Les:] When the document is published the following things will happen:

RFC7810 will get updated to include a line in the header that says: "Obsoleted by RFCxxxx"
RFCtobe (this document) will retain "Obsoletes RFC7810" in the header and the existing text in the abstract will also be retained.

Surely that is enough (as well as being standard practice).

> I also agree with Mirja's comments.

[Les:] Apologies to Mirja for not responding to her comment.
She suggested reference to RFCs such as RFC3393.

RFC 7810 referenced RFC6374 and RFC6375 - and this document retains those references.
We believe this adequately covers the "how to calculate" topic. 

   Les

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:54:00 -0500

On December 19, 2018 at 6:09:55 PM, Warren Kumari ([email-masked]) wrote:

Warren:

Hi!

There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC.
---
I'm not sure I really understand what happened, and if they ever replied -
I'll
trust that the AD did the right thing.

rfc7810 is a fairly recent document (2016), all the IPR checks were done
there [1].  Because of the importance, with relation to shipping
implementations, of the changes in rfc7810bis, and to not delay the
processing longer than needed, we decided to move on.  Note that Les, who
took on the editorial pen for the changes, is the only author/contributor
not listed as such in rfc7810.

Alvaro.

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions/shepherdwriteup/

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:57:37 -0500

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:17 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> RFCtobe (this document) will retain "Obsoletes RFC7810" in the header and
> the existing text in the abstract will also be retained.
>
If I've already read RFC7810, I'd certainly like to be able to look at the
abstract / obsoleted tab, see that Appendix A has the summary of what
changed, and then know what / if I have to reread in this doc.
But, this is just a comment / suggestion, feel free it ignore it...

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:58:42 -0500

> not listed as such in rfc7810.

Okey dokey (and, unsurprisingly, I was right to trust that you'd done the
right thing :-))
W