Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2328 (5956)

--===============0598652681038734799==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000133770059bbe8d01"

--000000000000133770059bbe8d01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Retana,

I appreciate your time and of all involved, but it is very inadmissible we
have a document used as a reference that is not used appropriately, or by
misunderstanding or by convenience.

I will internally advertise AT&T and IBM, because we work together with
both Cisco and Juniper equipment, and by the way with OSPF
interoperability. Beyond this tinny found, we can have another one that can
bring a big problem. This one, sincerely, I don't know what kind of issue
can bring, but at least I already know and it will save our time of
troubleshooting or delivering. My intention was to mitigate a possible
misunderstanding or a multiple different interpretations, that I guess it
is happening with Cisco and Juniper; both are not wrong depending from the
section they are based on.

So, I will try, following your recommendation, also to contact Cisco and
Juniper to make this all clear. As I said, my concern is that we have more
inconsistency between vendors and about something bigger.

Thank you guys!!
Happy 2020.

Em qui., 9 de jan. de 2020 =C3=A0s 20:11, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail=
..com>
escreveu:

> On January 9, 2020 at 3:51:51 PM, Marcelo Bustani wrote:
>
> [Trimming the distribution.]
>
> Marcelo:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I believe this is interesting to make this consistent, because I`m faci=
ng
> > different usage for this situation. For example, Cisco uses cost 1 for
> this
> > type of interface and Juniper cost 0.
> > I think that RFC as a document of standardization must be followed by
> all,
> > mainly for an open protocol as OSPF.
>
>
> We're all in agreement about the purpose of the RFC. :-)
>
> As far as the Errata Report, no change to the RFC is needed.  Unless
> anyone on the list disagrees, I am them going to mark the report as
> Rejected.
>
> You should be able to point the vendors to the RFC text and this
> discussion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alvaro.
>

--000000000000133770059bbe8d01
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Retana,</div><div><br></div><div>I appreciate your=
 time and of all involved, but it is very inadmissible we have a document u=
sed as a reference that is not used appropriately, or by misunderstanding o=
r by convenience.</div><div><br></div><div>I will internally advertise AT&a=
mp;T and IBM, because we work together with both Cisco and Juniper equipmen=
t, and by the way with OSPF interoperability. Beyond this tinny found, we c=
an have another one that can bring a big problem. This one, sincerely, I do=
n&#39;t know what kind of issue can bring, but at least I already know and =
it will save our time of troubleshooting or delivering. My intention was to=
 mitigate a possible misunderstanding or a multiple different interpretatio=
ns, that I guess it is happening with Cisco and Juniper; both are not wrong=
 depending from the section they are based on.</div><div><br></div><div>So,=
 I will try, following your recommendation, also to contact Cisco and Junip=
er to make this all clear. As I said, my concern is that we have more incon=
sistency between vendors and about something bigger.=C2=A0 <br></div><div><=
br></div><div>Thank you guys!!</div><div>Happy 2020.=C2=A0 <br></div></div>=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Em qui=
.., 9 de jan. de 2020 =C3=A0s 20:11, Alvaro Retana &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:are=
[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; escreveu:<br></div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On January 9, 2020 at 3:51:51=
 PM, Marcelo Bustani wrote:<br>
<br>
[Trimming the distribution.]<br>
<br>
Marcelo:<br>
<br>
Hi!<br>
<br>
&gt; I believe this is interesting to make this consistent, because I`m fac=
ing<br>
&gt; different usage for this situation. For example, Cisco uses cost 1 for=
 this<br>
&gt; type of interface and Juniper cost 0.<br>
&gt; I think that RFC as a document of standardization must be followed by =
all,<br>
&gt; mainly for an open protocol as OSPF.<br>
<br>
<br>
We&#39;re all in agreement about the purpose of the RFC. :-)<br>
<br>
As far as the Errata Report, no change to the RFC is needed.=C2=A0 Unless<b=
r>
anyone on the list disagrees, I am them going to mark the report as<br>
Rejected.<br>
<br>
You should be able to point the vendors to the RFC text and this discussion=
..<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Alvaro.<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000133770059bbe8d01--


--===============0598652681038734799==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

--===============0598652681038734799==--