Thanks all. Dino
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 10:57 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > > Re-, > > Seems we are all in agreement. > > I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy. > > Thank you, Brian. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29 >> À : Brian E Carpenter >> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; 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 >> >>> On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine with >> that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates 6833bis”. >> If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again). >>> >>> Yes, that would resolve my concern. >> >> Thanks. >> >>>> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is confusing >> and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is >> not the case here. >>> >>> That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that >> "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies". >> "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to >> create confusion. >> >> Then maybe those words should be used. >> >> Dino >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Brian >>> >>>> >>>> Dino >>>> >>>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly: >>>>> >>>>> I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to 6833bis >> and to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination >> suggested would address his concern. >>>>> >>>>> Yours, >>>>> Joel >>>>> >>>>> On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> ngo >>>>>>>> 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