Re-, Seems we are all in agreement.
I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy. Thank you, Brian. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29 > À : Brian E Carpenter > Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 > > > On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine with > that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates 6833bis”. > If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again). > > > > Yes, that would resolve my concern. > > Thanks. > > >> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is confusing > and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is > not the case here. > > > > That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that > "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies". > "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to > create confusion. > > Then maybe those words should be used. > > Dino > > > > > Thanks > > Brian > > > >> > >> Dino > >> > >>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>> ngo > >>>>>> 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
