Awesome, thank you! W
On Fri, May 19 2023 at 6:21 PM, Les Ginsberg <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > Done and posted new versions for both 8919bis and 8920bis. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> > *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2023 7:41 AM > *To:* Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; The IESG < > i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org > *Subject:* Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on > draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT) > > > > That seems reasonable. > > > > Les, I encourage you not to wait for the end of IESG review to make the > change, if you’re going to — maybe it will help someone else even though > Warren did extra work (sorry Warren, I tried). > > > > —John > > > > On May 18, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:35 AM, Les Ginsberg <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Warren - > > Thanx for the thoughtful (and entertaining [image: Image removed by > sender. 😊]) review. > > I have no objection to adding a forward reference to the "changes" section > for both this document and draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis. My only concern is > whether this violates the guideline that the "abstract should be complete > in itself". > > > > Yah, that did bother me slightly — but I decided to just ignore the sense > of disquiet and hope it was just me :-) Another option would just be to > have something towards the start of the Introduction saying > something similar? > > > > W > > > > > > > > Les > > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, > May 18, 2023 8:22 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > cho...@chopps.org; cho...@chopps.org > Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: > (with COMMENT) > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Du2inLYK-hBC29i17_gdaif8tM0kGoWCp_ulCHE68Wbmn9263fadnCDxrAdPIPGoN5pf9HDLyFwq$> > positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Du2inLYK-hBC29i17_gdaif8tM0kGoWCp_ulCHE68Wbmn9263fadnCDxrAdPIPGoN5pf9B_4mwmW$> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I initially wrote this up as a DISCUSS position, but made it NoObjection > instead because it didn't strictly fit the DISCUSS criteria -- that said, I > *do* think that it is important and would really appreciate it if you'd > strongly consider addressing it (it's also IMO a trivial update!). > > I reviewed this document on a plane, and had a bunch of comments... but it > was > only when I came to ballot that and I saw John Scudder's note of "Note > that this document is a tightly-scoped update to RFC 8919. Prudent > reviewers will focus on the diff vs. 8919 [1], and *not* try to do a > detailed/full document review." - it would have been great to know that > before reading the document! > > Knowing what has changed in a -bis is really important - it lets the > reader know if they actually have to bother reading the new document. This > information > *does* exist in this document, but it is buried in the RFC equivalent of > the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a > sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” (Section 9, between > Security Considerations and References) > > Normally, in an "Updates" document we'd say (in the Abstract) something > like > "This document updates RFC 8919 by x and y and z". This is somewhat harder > to > do in a grammatically correct manner with Obsoletes, but perhaps something > like: "This document obsoletes RFC 8919; the changes are documented in > Section > 9"? (I'm planning on balloting the same on the OSPF version of this doc). > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
