John -
> OLD:
> 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag
>
> NEW:
> 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field
>
Seems reasonable to me.
> Absent further discussion, I'll plan to open an editorial erratum with that
> proposal; in light of the alleged waves, I will get it done by end of week,
> possibly today. Since I'll be the one opening it, and since it's not
> completely
> uncontentious, I'll ask one of the other ADs to handle verifying or rejecting
> it.
>
Thanx for the prompt attention.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:13 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
> Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; Hannes Gredler
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Peter
> Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Horneffer, Martin
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label
>
> Hi Les,
>
> > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:03 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Let's be careful here.
>
> Certainly. I don't think we've been proceeding recklessly so far, have we?
>
> > SR-MPLS has been deployed for several years, there are multiple
> implementations which have demonstrated interoperability, and clearly the
> correct encoding of the SID is a key element of that interoperability.
> >
> > As a co-author, I am happy to listen to relevant feedback, but any textual
> change which has the potential to even suggest that an actual change has
> been made in encoding is clearly undesirable.
> >
> > John - I note you have already acknowledged any errata (or erratum 😊)
> would be an editorial one - but given the above context and the fact that no
> one over these many years has publicly voiced any concerns
>
> ^ until now
>
> > argues for caution.
> > I am sure you have more pressing issues, but as your post has already
> started to cause waves, I would appreciate resolving this sooner rather than
> later.
>
> It's not the direction I had been thinking in, but Tony Li got there first and
> suggested [1] a change that I think would get the job done. It has the merit
> of
> being a minimal update to the published text. The change would be,
>
> OLD:
> 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag
>
> NEW:
> 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field
>
> Absent further discussion, I'll plan to open an editorial erratum with that
> proposal; in light of the alleged waves, I will get it done by end of week,
> possibly today. Since I'll be the one opening it, and since it's not
> completely
> uncontentious, I'll ask one of the other ADs to handle verifying or rejecting
> it.
>
> —John
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/xIBSCGENJAuPHquywuPvt-
> oItIE/
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
