Hi Brian, all, The changes are now available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02
A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57 > À : Dino Farinacci; Brian E Carpenter > 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 > > 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
