Hi Deborah, LISP-Sec is pretty much done. Once are moved forward we just need to make LISP-Sec standard track, double check consistency with the bis documents (as a shepherd I’ll do it), and then go for WGLC. There are good chances that we can wrap it up before IETF 103.
Having said the above, I agree with you that LISP-Sec does not need to be a normative reference in the Intro document. Ciao L. > On 11 Sep 2018, at 23:07, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Albert, > > LISP-intro is only blocked by one document, lisp-sec. One could do an update, > though as Dino noted, because RFC6830 included both 6830bis and 6833bis, one > would need to go thru the document and clean up all the references to > RFC6830. And then one would need to wait for these documents to progress as > they are both normative. The current version is ok as is - it points to > RFC6830 (and datatracker will point a reader to the bis’s). > > I’m wondering on another approach. If I recall correctly (my memory may have > faded), we had optimism that lisp-sec would be done by now, and so had waited > on it. But it is not. Looking at the reference to it in lisp-intro, it is in > the security section as “and the lightweight authentication mechanism > proposed by LISP-Sec [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] reduces”. I wasn’t involved at the > time, but I’m wondering why a “proposed mechanism” merited a normative > reference in an informational document? > > RFC7322 RFC Style Guide has: > “Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or > informative, where normative references are essential to implementing or > understanding the content of the RFC and informative references provide > additional information”. > > I don’t see lisp-sec as essential to implementing lisp-intro. I don’t know > why it was listed as normative? To me, it is providing additional information. > > If the working group agrees, I can check with the RFC-Editor if can move > lisp-security to informative. I think the change will only need author and AD > approval. Does anyone have any concerns? Or is lisp-security “almost done” > and should continue to wait? > > Deborah > > > From: lisp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Albert Cabellos > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 4:04 PM > To: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT) > > Hi > > I am not familiar with all the IETF procedures, but lisp-intro has been > waiting for a missing reference for 1000+ days and the day it will become RFC > it will be referencing an obsolete document. > > I think that we should make it right, if someone can shepherd me on what to > do I´ll be happy to work on it. > > Albert > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:37 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Right now there is no circular dependency. To summarize: > > (1) RFC6830 does not point to 6830bis or lisp-intro. > (2) lisp-intro points to RFC6830. > (3) 6860bis needs to point to RFC6830. > > Let’s please don’t change any this. Let’s not make this more complciated then > it needs to be and let’s not confuse people, especially the authors. ;-) > > Dino > > > > On Sep 11, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On September 11, 2018 at 9:50:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern ([email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > >> Any change to lisp-intro should be done by discussion with the RFC > >> Editor, as it is in the RFC Editor queue (pending reference completion). > >> If the working group considers it acceptable, we could easily ask them > >> to change the references to 6830 and 6833 to the bis documents (after > >> all, it is alreay blocked by documents which depend upon those.) > > The reference would still be circular: rfc6830bis would point at > > lisp-introduction for architecture details, and that would point back here. > > > > If lisp-introduction was just that (an introduction) and the details were > > in rfc6830 to start with…. Maybe the easy fix is to just not point to > > lisp-introduction from rfc6830bis, because the details should be here (and > > rfc6833bis) already. > > > > s/Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture.// > > > > Alvaro. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >> On 9/10/18 11:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> > If you guys have source for the intro doc, I could point it to bis > >> > documents? > >> > > >> > Dino > >> > > >> > > >> > Begin forwarded message: > >> > > >> >> *Resent-From:* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > >> >> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > >> >> *Date:* September 10, 2018 at 2:22:21 PM PDT > >> >> *Resent-To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >> *To:* "The IESG" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > >> >> *Cc:* [email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, Luigi Iannone > >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>>, [email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >> *Subject:* *Alvaro Retana's No Objection on > >> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)* > >> >> > >> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > >> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: 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 > >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=oPZvrLxSbMmHAkPUEKcOEuc_W3yLv78MaueJ0vFnI70&e=> > >> >> 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-rfc6830bis/ > >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Drfc6830bis_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=nUPPoB0OOP411rwJQI4vWXc0-ilIPZ5gKw2ya09H85s&e=> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> COMMENT: > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for the work on this document! > >> >> > >> >> I have some relatively minor comments/nits: > >> >> > >> >> (1) §18: s/RFC8060/RFC8061 > >> >> > >> >> (2) §1: "Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP > >> >> architecture." First of all, it would seem to me that the > >> >> Architecture should > >> >> be a Normative reference...but I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction says that it > >> >> "is used > >> >> for introductory purposes, more details can be found in RFC6830, the > >> >> protocol > >> >> specification." This document obsoletes rfc6830...so it seems to me > >> >> that there > >> >> is a failed circular dependency. > >> >> > >> >> (3) References to rfc2119/rfc8174 and rfc8126 should be Normative. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> lisp mailing list > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=ugRUj6YxdlcfpWsNYEX-oZU7ob0qzzca0fQtmhDyO5A&e=> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=ugRUj6YxdlcfpWsNYEX-oZU7ob0qzzca0fQtmhDyO5A&e=>_______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
