Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-18 Thread Joel M. Halpern 

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
.

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.








___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-18 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
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
>> .
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-18 Thread Joel M. Halpern 
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.


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
.

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.




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-18 Thread Brian Carpenter 
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
.

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.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art