IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes
draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04
Yes
No Objection
Erik Kline
Jim Guichard
Murray Kucherawy
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
John Scudder
Yes
Comment
(2023-05-03 for -01)
Not sent
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. Also, be aware that the registry name changes in the document reflect an earlier registry reorganization, between the publication of RFC 8919 and this bis document, the registry name changes are not being done by this document. Finally, be aware that there's a similar document, draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis, that makes virtually the same changes, but with respect to RFC 8920 (OSPF) instead of RFC 8919 (IS-IS). I suggest reviewing them at the same time. [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8919&url2=draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis&difftype=--html
Erik Kline
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment
(2023-05-24 for -03)
Not sent
Thanks to the sponsoring AD John Scudder for providing context and the diff link in his Yes ballot and advertising this to the other ADs :)
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2023-05-22 for -03)
Not sent
Thank you to Watson Ladd for the SECDIR review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2023-05-18 for -02)
Sent
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).
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2023-05-24 for -03)
Not sent
Thanks to John Scudder for the warning about revising only the diff, due to lack of time I will follow his guidance even if normally the IESG should review the whole document. I am also sympathetic to Warren Kumari's ballot. Thanks also to Christian Hopps for the shepherd's write-up.
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2023-05-25 for -03)
Sent
Thank you for taking the time/effort to update the specification to make it clearer.
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-05-25 for -03)
Sent
Hi There, Thanks for the document and for attempts to clarify things. By way of one non-blocking comment, and just for my own understanding, I'd like to understand why the S-Bit (Segment Routing Policy) has been explicitly denoted dataplane independent. This comment equally applies to draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis Thanks Andrew
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-05-24 for -03)
Not sent
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-03 CC @larseggert Thanks to Robert Sparks for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/LIVh0a3mn2tp9mWYXQ0QV8wgziA). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool