Subject: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:38:01 -0800

Dear authors:

Thanks for taking on this work!!

I have just a couple of comments.

(1) There are too many authors in the front page.  I know that the list was
cut prior to rfc7810 being processed, and that Les was added to hold the
pen on this revision, so I'll let this one proceed.  Just one thing: please
group the authors by affiliation (which will reduce the size of the header).

(2) Both rfc7471 and rfc7810 can be Informative references.

(3) There's an active thread related to the definition of Available
Bandwidth [1].  Please keep an eye on it and participate as needed.

I don't think the ongoing discussion is a showstopper at this point.  I am
starting the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/zOdpuIbCViJToCsC9mNnRmoEiQw

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:36:28 +0000

Alvaro –

Comments inline.

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02

Dear authors:

(1) There are too many authors in the front page.  I know that the list was cut prior to rfc7810 being processed, and that Les was added to hold the pen on this revision, so I'll let this one proceed.  Just one thing: please group the authors by affiliation (which will reduce the size of the header).

[Les:] Given that it is customary to list the editors first, I find it awkward to do this.

[Les:] I find this request a bit odd.
RFC7810 would certainly seem to be a normative reference as 99% of the text in the bis version is taken verbatim from RFC 7810.
RFC7471 is referenced only in the Appendix, but still – it is the consistency in language between the two documents which is one of the motivations for changes. This seems pretty essential to me.
???

(3) There's an active thread related to the definition of Available Bandwidth [1].  Please keep an eye on it and participate as needed.

[Les:] V3 of this draft has been published addressing this point.
If you agree with my comments above there is then no need for any additional changes.

   Les

I don't think the ongoing discussion is a showstopper at this point.  I am starting the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:04:29 -0800

On November 29, 2018 at 2:36:30 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Les:

[Les:] Given that it is customary to list the editors first, I find it
awkward to do this.

Hmm..I couldn’t find that in rfc7322 (RFC Style Guide).

Not a showstopper.

RFC7810 would certainly seem to be a normative reference as 99% of the text
in the bis version is taken verbatim from RFC 7810.

RFC7471 is referenced only in the Appendix, but still – it is the
consistency in language between the two documents which is one of the
motivations for changes. This seems pretty essential to me.

???

"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand…”
[1]

I don’t think either reference is necessary to understand the content of
this document.  On one hand, rfc7810 is being obsoleted, which means that
this document is completely replacing it (anything that would have been
relevant from rfc7810 is now in this document).  OTOH, while consistency is
nice, the text in the Appendix doesn’t carry normative wight.

BTW, the text where rfc7471 is referenced is this: "This matches the
corresponding advertisements specified in the equivalent OSPF specification
[RFC7471] and the corresponding BGP-LS specification
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp].”  According to your
argument, I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp would also be essential and would need to
be a Normative reference….

In any case, there is no significant issue with a misplaced Normative
reference.  The inverse (Informative references that should be Normative)
is much more important.

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/

Thanks for the update.

If you agree with my comments above there is then no need for any
additional changes.

I obviously don’t, but there’s no need to discuss any more.  I won’t stop
the document from processing as is.

Alvaro.