Hi Dino, OLD:
Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to procedures in [RFC8126]. NEW: Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC8113]. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 > > What does fixing in (1) mean? > > Dino > > > On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by the WG. > You may refer, for example, to the message from Deborah which clarifies this > point: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg07886.html. One > of the outcomes of that discussion is to add an "updates" header to 8113bis. > > > > FWIW, one of the issues that led to that conclusion was whether to cite > rfc8113bis as normative in 6833bis (the approach I initially supported) and > agreed by Dino (https://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/lisp/current/msg07882.html). Deborah convinced me that citing > 8113bis will lead to circular dependency. Which is a fair argument. > > > > The "updates" tag was justified as follows: > > > > (1) > > > > RFC6833bis includes the following: > > > > Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to > > procedures in [RFC8126]. > > > > That text is updated by RFC8113bis to be aligned with 8113: > > > > Values can be assigned via Standards Action > > > > (2) > > > > RFC8113bis extends the type field to grab more bits/values when the > available types are exhausted. This is captured in 8113bis: > > > > The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. > > This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the > > exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. > > > > Dino: If (1) is fixed directly in RFC6833bis, then I'm fine to remove the > "updates" header because (2) can be also seen as an extension. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37 > >> À : Joel M. Halpern > >> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-lisp- > >> [email protected] > >> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis- > 01 > >> > >> Mohmad to comment. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag. > >>> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct. > >>> Yours, > >>> Joel > >>> > >>> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >>>> 8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have > >> more types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can > be > >> interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem. > >>>> 8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there can > be > >> another format to have more types. > >>>> Dino > >>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yours, > >>>>> Joel > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>>>>> On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >>>>>>> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP > specs > >>>>>>> to PS. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis > is > >>>>>>> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that > needed > >>>>>>> to move to PS along with everything else. It seemed (and is) simpler > >> to > >>>>>>> do it separately rather than to further modify 6830bis / 6933bis. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As for why it updates 6833bis, that is because one of the cahnges in > >>>>>>> moving the set to PS was to improve the split as to which information > >>>>>>> belonged in which document. > >>>>>> OK, but I still don't find it logical The text doesn't explain which > >> part of > >>>>>> 6833bis is impacted, and normally these days we require such an > >> explanation. > >>>>>> And if there is an impact, you're missing the opportunity of fixing > the > >> error > >>>>>> or gap in 6833bis, so the reader of 6833bis will be none the wiser > >> unless > >>>>>> you insert a reference to 8113bis. > >>>>>> On the other hand, if there is no error or gap, you don't need > >> "Updates:" > >>>>>> at all. (Unfortunately, we don't have an "Extends:" header.) > >>>>>> Brian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yours, > >>>>>>> Joel > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 12/18/18 9:25 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: > >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > >>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > >>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > >>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > >>>>>>>> like any other last call comments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at > >>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt > >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > >>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-12-19 > >>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27 > >>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues > >>>>>>>> -------- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Comments: > >>>>>>>> --------- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the standards > >> track. > >>>>>>>> Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Minor issues: > >>>>>>>> ------------- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text doesn't > >>>>>>>> explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to RFC8113, which > >>>>>>>> explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why doesn't > >>>>>>>> this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume that > >>>>>>>> is an error. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types registry > >>>>>>>> moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it belongs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG review, > >> anything > >>>>>>>> in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is that > >> rfc8113bis > >>>>>>>> extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates". > >>>>>>>> If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read 8113bis, > >>>>>>>> there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> lisp mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
