I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can logically cite 8113, which it replaces.
Frankly I think you've collectively created a plate of citation spaghetti by not moving the IANA considerations for the type field registry into 6830bis, which is where they naturally belong. If you don't want to do that, I think you have to leave them in 8113bis and simply lose the citation of 6833bis, which serves no purpose that I can see. Regards Brian On 2018-12-21 06:32, Dino Farinacci wrote: > I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised. > > Dino > >> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> >> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Dino, >> >> OLD: >> >> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >> procedures in [RFC8126]. >> >> NEW: >> >> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >> Action [RFC8113]. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; 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 >>> >>> 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
