I confirm. Cheers, Med
> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:58 > À : Brian E Carpenter; Dino Farinacci; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > Cc : Joel M. Halpern; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-lisp- > [email protected] > Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 > > Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly: > > I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to 6833bis > and to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis. > > I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination > suggested would address his concern. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can > > logically cite 8113, which it replaces. > > > > Frankly I think you've collectively created a plate of citation > > spaghetti by not moving the IANA considerations for the type field > > registry into 6830bis, which is where they naturally belong. If you > > don't want to do that, I think you have to leave them in 8113bis and > > simply lose the citation of 6833bis, which serves no purpose that > > I can see. > > > > Regards > > Brian > > > > On 2018-12-21 06:32, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> 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
