Hi, _IF_ we go for references update in the Intro document, we should proof read the whole document because some things have been moved around. For instance: lisp-intro states SMR is defined in 6830, we cannot replace it with 6830bis, because now it is defined in 6833bis.
Ciao L. > On 12 Sep 2018, at 02:27, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just went and looked again at draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis and > draft-ietf-lisp-introduction. > > I do not see a circularity problem. > > 6833bis says, as you quote, that "draft-ietf-lisp-introduction describes the > LISP archtiecture." > And draft-ietf-lisp-introduction says "this document introduces the > Locator/ID Separation Protocol ... architecture". > (Yes, I elided the reference to 6830, because it is essentially meaninglss in > that sentence. It is, the protocol definition.) > Seems quite consistent. > > I do not see any need to change what is the the bis draft in this regard. > > In a perfect world, the introduction draft (in the rfc editor queue) would > point to 6830bis and 6833 bis. > If the ADs agree that is appropriate, they can direct the RFC Editor to make > thaqt change. I do not consider this to be substantive, as the protocol > behavior is not different between the documents (unlike the ongoing > controversy about ICE.) I do not consider such a change necessary. > > > > On 9/11/18 12:29 PM, Alvaro Retana 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 >>> >> 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/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> 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 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
