Alvaro, I don’t know what you want to be satisified with the text. And rather than go 20 questions, with weeks of turn-around time, can you offer text please?
Dino > On Sep 24, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > > On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci ([email protected]) > wrote: > > Hi! > > I’m back to this document…after the Defer... > > ... >> > (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. > The text is there, but the tag in the header is missing ("Obsoletes: 6833 (if > approved)”). > > > >> > (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. > The only place where I see type 15 referenced is in §5.1. If that section is > "asking to register the new ones which include type 15”, then these are > instructions to IANA. > > Regardless, a pointer from §11.2 to §5.1 won’t hurt the document. > > > >> > (5) Because of the point above, this draft should (at least) Update >> > rfc8113 >> > (see also below). >> >> Don’t follow. > This document asks that the LISP Packet Type registry point also to this > registry. That is a change to the registry, which was defined in rfc8113 > (which is the only current reference). Updating the registry this way should > be signaled with an update to rfc8113 in this document. > > > >> > (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. > I see that there’s a WG adoption call for rfc8113bis. That’s fine with me — > but I still think that the reference should be normative. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
