> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/
Thanks for your comments Alvaro. See my responses below.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are several issues in §5.1 (LISP Control Packet Type Allocations) that
> need to be fixed. I don't think any of them raise up to a DISCUSS, but I
> would
> like to see them resolved before publication.
>
> §5.1 "defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes for IANA the
> LISP
> Type codes assigned by this document".
>
> (1) Instructions (or anything directed) to IANA should be in the IANA
> Considerations section. There isn't even a pointer to this section later on
> for IANA to look at it.
These are not instructions. The instructions are in the IANA Considerations
section. And IANA already knows what to do and already have done so. So there
is no confusion with them.
> (2) The text seems to imply ("Message type definitions are") that the types
> are
> defined here (or at least in rfc6833, which this document Obsoletes), but they
> are defined in rfc6830, rfc8111 and rfc8113. Please properly identify the
> source (only the rfc8113 line has a reference).
It means exactly what it says. Only type 15 extensions are defined in 8113. I
have added text that this document, RFC6833bis does obsolete both 6830 and 6833.
> (3) Even though draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis is tagged as Obsoleting rfc6830, I
> think that, because of how the contents of that RFC were distributed, this
> document should also be tagged as Obsoleting rfc6830.
Done.
> (4) The LISP Packet Types registry was set up in rfc8113. This document asks
> that IANA "refers to this document as well as [RFC8113] as references"
> (§11.2),
> and it seems to try to change the registration (or the text is incomplete) in
> (§5.1): "Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
> procedures in [RFC8126]." Which procedure? s/Not Assigned/Unassigned (§6 in
> rfc8126)
The early values are already registered with IANA. This document is asking to
register the new ones which include type 15. And the values *within* type 15
are documented in RFC8113.
> (5) Because of the point above, this draft should (at least) Update rfc8113
> (see also below).
Don’t follow.
> (6) This document says that "Protocol designers experimenting with new message
> formats SHOULD use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type". I think this
> statement makes rfc8113 a Normative reference -- which results in a DownRef.
> Suggestion: given that this document already updates the registry set up in
> rfc8113, and recommends the use of the Shared Extension Message, it may be a
> good idea to simply adopt the contents of that document here (grand total of 6
> pages) and declare it Obsolete.
I’m yielding to the lisp-chairs and Deborah for this one.
> (7) Type 7 is missing.
Fixed.
Thanks again,
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
