You raise an interesting point Geoff.
The documents are experimental. As such, it is reasoanble for this
document to be experimental, and for it merely to require IETF RFC for
assignment, without restricting it to Standards Track RFCs.
And while we are in the process of moving the LISP documents to
Standards Track, that will take time.
However, I would like to be able to have the right status in the
documents when we get the upgrade done. We can do a revision of this
document as well, but that seems to be creating work.
Any suggestions for how to thread this needly?
Yours,
Joel
On 11/27/16 10:04 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate,
please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-03.txt
Reviewer: Geoff Huston Review
Date: 28 November 2016
IETF LC End Date: not called
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the
Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors and the IANA.
Comments:
Draft quality and readability.
The third paragraph of the Introduction is unclear. Given that LISP itself
is an experimental specification it is hard to understand the distinction
being made between the "experimentation purposes" and some other
undescribed purpose which this reviewer can only conclude is also an
experimentation purpose. I suggest re-thinking the intent of this
paragraph and expressing it in simpler terms.
In section 2, the use of the normative "MUST" seems to be inappropriate,
particularly when a non-normative "must" ius used in section 4 in an
identical context.
Major Issues:
It seems anomalous to me that a request to set up an IANA Registry for an
Experimental Protocol (RFC6830 is Experimental) is itself proposed to be a
Standards Track document.
Furthermore, the document states that additional values be assigned via a
Standards Action. Again, it appears anomalous to me that a specification
of a parameter value of an experimental protocol be described by a
Standards Track action.
If RFC6830 is revised and is re-published as a Standards Track
specification then these points are of course not relevant, but until such
a publication takes place, specifying an IANA parameter registry as a
Standards Track action for an experimental protocol seems to me to be
anomalous and should not proceed unless the IESG specifically agrees with
this approach. Alternatively RFC5226 could be further revised to
explicitly describe the guidelines as they relate to Experimental
Specifications (as distinct from experimental allocations within Standards
Track specifications), as this area appears to be unclear from my reading
of RFC5226.
However it is not for me to resolve this issue, nor is it up to the draft
authors, or the LISP working group, as far as I can tell. It is up to the IESG
and
IANA to clarify this situation and allow IANA to be given clear directions
as to how to maintain parameter registries for experimental specifications
while they remain experiments.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
