Hi Les, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:03 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
