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 <j...@joelhalpern.com> 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 > l...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
