Re-, Works for me, too.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : lundi 28 novembre 2016 07:11 > À : Geoff Huston > Cc : Joel M. Halpern; [email protected]; Zhangxian (Xian); [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-lisp-type- > [email protected]; Jon Hudson > Objet : Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana- > 03.txt > > I think this is a good and expedient suggestion. > > Dino > > > On Nov 27, 2016, at 8:34 PM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am not fully aware of all the options here, but it strikes me that the > IESG could publish this document as EXPERIMENTAL, consistent with RFC6830, > and in the future whatever mechanism is used to update RFC6830 to > Standards Track, the same document could UPDATE this document and place it > on the standards track by virtue of the Update. > > > > There may be other approaches as well, as this is _not_ an area where I > would call myself an “expert”! > > > > regards, > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > >> On 28 Nov. 2016, at 3:01 pm, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> You raise an interesting point Geoff. > >> > >> The documents are experimental. As such, it is reasoanble for this > document to be experimental, and for it merely to require IETF RFC for > assignment, without restricting it to Standards Track RFCs. > >> > >> And while we are in the process of moving the LISP documents to > Standards Track, that will take time. > >> > >> However, I would like to be able to have the right status in the > documents when we get the upgrade done. We can do a revision of this > document as well, but that seems to be creating work. > >> > >> Any suggestions for how to thread this needly? > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >>> On 11/27/16 10:04 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > draft. > >>> > >>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related > >>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and > sometimes > >>> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance > to > >>> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, > >>> please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > >>> > >>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, > it > >>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF > Last > >>> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through > >>> discussion or by updating the draft. > >>> > >>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-03.txt > >>> Reviewer: Geoff Huston Review > >>> Date: 28 November 2016 > >>> IETF LC End Date: not called > >>> Intended Status: Standards Track > >>> > >>> Summary: > >>> > >>> I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the > >>> Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors and the > IANA. > >>> > >>> Comments: > >>> > >>> Draft quality and readability. > >>> > >>> The third paragraph of the Introduction is unclear. Given that LISP > itself > >>> is an experimental specification it is hard to understand the > distinction > >>> being made between the "experimentation purposes" and some other > >>> undescribed purpose which this reviewer can only conclude is also an > >>> experimentation purpose. I suggest re-thinking the intent of this > >>> paragraph and expressing it in simpler terms. > >>> > >>> In section 2, the use of the normative "MUST" seems to be > inappropriate, > >>> particularly when a non-normative "must" ius used in section 4 in an > >>> identical context. > >>> > >>> Major Issues: > >>> > >>> It seems anomalous to me that a request to set up an IANA Registry for > an > >>> Experimental Protocol (RFC6830 is Experimental) is itself proposed to > be a > >>> Standards Track document. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, the document states that additional values be assigned > via a > >>> Standards Action. Again, it appears anomalous to me that a > specification > >>> of a parameter value of an experimental protocol be described by a > >>> Standards Track action. > >>> > >>> If RFC6830 is revised and is re-published as a Standards Track > >>> specification then these points are of course not relevant, but until > such > >>> a publication takes place, specifying an IANA parameter registry as a > >>> Standards Track action for an experimental protocol seems to me to be > >>> anomalous and should not proceed unless the IESG specifically agrees > with > >>> this approach. Alternatively RFC5226 could be further revised to > >>> explicitly describe the guidelines as they relate to Experimental > >>> Specifications (as distinct from experimental allocations within > Standards > >>> Track specifications), as this area appears to be unclear from my > reading > >>> of RFC5226. > >>> > >>> However it is not for me to resolve this issue, nor is it up to the > draft > >>> authors, or the LISP working group, as far as I can tell. It is up to > the IESG and > >>> IANA to clarify this situation and allow IANA to be given clear > directions > >>> as to how to maintain parameter registries for experimental > specifications > >>> while they remain experiments. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lisp mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
