Brian, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:56 > À : Dino Farinacci; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > Cc : Joel M. Halpern; 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 > > I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can > logically cite 8113, which it replaces. > [Med] The change is for 6833bis NOT 8113bis. 6833bis already cites 8113, which describes the rules for assigning new types. > 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
