> On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> 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). > > Yes, that would resolve my concern.
Thanks. >> 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. > > That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that > "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies". > "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to > create confusion. Then maybe those words should be used. Dino > > Thanks > Brian > >> >> 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
