What does fixing in (1) mean? Dino
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> 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:farina...@gmail.com] >> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37 >> À : Joel M. Halpern >> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp- >> rfc8113bis....@ietf.org >> 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 <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
