Hi, may be we do not need a state anything with respect of 6833bis.
Looking at the IANA considerations section of both 8113bis and 6833bis, they just request IANA to rename/allocate something in an existing registry. In particular, 8113bis does not extend/update nothing in 6833bis. IMHO we just drop the “update 6833bis” and we are fine. Ciao L. > On 19 Dec 2018, at 06:37, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
