That is not the part I had a problem with. Consider it added. Dino
> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:22 AM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dino, > > I think that Alvaro has a valid point about rfc8113bis to be cited as > normative. > > This is easy to fix, IMO. Thanks. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : lisp [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dino Farinacci >> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 19:39 >> À : Alvaro Retana >> Cc : [email protected]; The IESG; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Objet : Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp- >> rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT) >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
