I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised. Dino
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
