John, Alvaro,
do we have a consensus whether we need the update to RFC 7370 or not?
thanks,
Peter
On 13/05/2021 21:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Alvaro –
FWIW, I agree w John here.
There are many examples – to cite a few:
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS
reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes,
inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute
TLVs)
…
Reference
[RFC5305][RFC5316][RFC7370][RFC8668]
RFC 8868 is not marked as updating RFC 7370.
RFC 7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5316/RFC 5305.
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 (Extended IP reachability, MT
IP. Reach, IPv6 IP. Reach, and MT IPv6 IP. Reach TLVs)
…
Reference
[RFC5305][RFC7370]
Again, RFC7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5305.
I think it is sufficient to request that IANA add the new RFC to the
list of References for the modified registry.
Les
*From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *John Scudder
*Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM
*To:* Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>
*Cc:* John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing
registry.
Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s
normal for an
RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a
previous RFC that
established that registry. I think the “updates” just confuses
matters and
clutters things up, and should be removed.
In this case the document is not only registering a value. It is
changing the name of the registry, adding an extra column, and
updating all the other entries (§11.1.*). The Updates tag is used
because it significantly changes the registry.
Still seems unnecessary to me, registries are moving targets, citation
of all the relevant RFCs in their references should be sufficient. So,
the registry would be updated so that it cited both this spec and 7370,
and someone wanting to know “how did the registry get this way?” would
be able to work it out.
I’m not going to fight about it; the “updates” is not very harmful. I
say “not very” because the diligent reader might be led to think they
need to go read RFC 7370 in order to properly understand this spec, and
waste some time realizing that isn’t true. Since for better or worse we
don’t have a firm definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it
comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end.
$0.02,
—John
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
