Mohmad to comment. Dino
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> 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 <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
