Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine with that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates 6833bis”. If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again).
Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is confusing and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is not the case here. Dino > On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly: > > I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to 6833bis and > to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis. > > I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination > suggested would address his concern. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can >> logically cite 8113, which it replaces. >> Frankly I think you've collectively created a plate of citation >> spaghetti by not moving the IANA considerations for the type field >> registry into 6830bis, which is where they naturally belong. If you >> don't want to do that, I think you have to leave them in 8113bis and >> simply lose the citation of 6833bis, which serves no purpose that >> I can see. >> Regards >> Brian >> On 2018-12-21 06:32, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised. >>> >>> Dino >>> ngo >>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> >>>> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Dino, >>>> >>>> OLD: >>>> >>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >>>> procedures in [RFC8126]. >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> >>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >>>> Action [RFC8113]. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00 >>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org; >>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis....@ietf.org >>>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of >>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 >>>>> >>>>> What does fixing in (1) mean? >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> >>>>> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by the >>>>>> WG. >>>>> You may refer, for example, to the message from Deborah which clarifies >>>>> this >>>>> point: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg07886.html. >>>>> One >>>>> of the outcomes of that discussion is to add an "updates" header to >>>>> 8113bis. >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, one of the issues that led to that conclusion was whether to cite >>>>> rfc8113bis as normative in 6833bis (the approach I initially supported) >>>>> and >>>>> agreed by Dino (https://www.ietf.org/mail- >>>>> archive/web/lisp/current/msg07882.html). Deborah convinced me that citing >>>>> 8113bis will lead to circular dependency. Which is a fair argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "updates" tag was justified as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC6833bis includes the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >>>>>> procedures in [RFC8126]. >>>>>> >>>>>> That text is updated by RFC8113bis to be aligned with 8113: >>>>>> >>>>>> Values can be assigned via Standards Action >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC8113bis extends the type field to grab more bits/values when the >>>>> available types are exhausted. This is captured in 8113bis: >>>>>> >>>>>> The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. >>>>>> This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the >>>>>> exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dino: If (1) is fixed directly in RFC6833bis, then I'm fine to remove the >>>>> "updates" header because (2) can be also seen as an extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Med >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37 >>>>>>> À : Joel M. Halpern >>>>>>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org; >>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp- >>>>>>> rfc8113bis....@ietf.org >>>>>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of >>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis- >>>>> 01 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mohmad to comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dino >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag. >>>>>>>> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is >>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>>>>>> 8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>> more types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can >>>>> be >>>>>>> interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem. >>>>>>>>> 8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there >>>>>>>>> can >>>>> be >>>>>>> another format to have more types. >>>>>>>>> Dino >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP >>>>> specs >>>>>>>>>>>> to PS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / >>>>>>>>>>>> 6833bis >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that >>>>> needed >>>>>>>>>>>> to move to PS along with everything else. It seemed (and is) >>>>>>>>>>>> simpler >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> do it separately rather than to further modify 6830bis / 6933bis. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for why it updates 6833bis, that is because one of the cahnges >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> moving the set to PS was to improve the split as to which >>>>>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>>>>> belonged in which document. >>>>>>>>>>> OK, but I still don't find it logical The text doesn't explain which >>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>>>>> 6833bis is impacted, and normally these days we require such an >>>>>>> explanation. >>>>>>>>>>> And if there is an impact, you're missing the opportunity of fixing >>>>> the >>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>> or gap in 6833bis, so the reader of 6833bis will be none the wiser >>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>>> you insert a reference to 8113bis. >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if there is no error or gap, you don't need >>>>>>> "Updates:" >>>>>>>>>>> at all. (Unfortunately, we don't have an "Extends:" header.) >>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 9:25 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>>>>>>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General >>>>>>>>>>>>> Area >>>>>>>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >>>>>>>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >>>>>>>>>>>>> like any other last call comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>>>>>>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-12-19 >>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27 >>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments: >>>>>>>>>>>>> --------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> standards >>>>>>> track. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Minor issues: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to RFC8113, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>> explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an error. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types >>>>>>>>>>>>> registry >>>>>>>>>>>>> moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it belongs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG review, >>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>> in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is that >>>>>>> rfc8113bis >>>>>>>>>>>>> extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates". >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8113bis, >>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>>>>>> l...@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
