I just went and looked again at draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis and
draft-ietf-lisp-introduction.
I do not see a circularity problem.
6833bis says, as you quote, that "draft-ietf-lisp-introduction describes
the LISP archtiecture."
And draft-ietf-lisp-introduction says "this document introduces the
Locator/ID Separation Protocol ... architecture".
(Yes, I elided the reference to 6830, because it is essentially
meaninglss in that sentence. It is, the protocol definition.)
Seems quite consistent.
I do not see any need to change what is the the bis draft in this regard.
In a perfect world, the introduction draft (in the rfc editor queue)
would point to 6830bis and 6833 bis.
If the ADs agree that is appropriate, they can direct the RFC Editor to
make thaqt change. I do not consider this to be substantive, as the
protocol behavior is not different between the documents (unlike the
ongoing controversy about ICE.) I do not consider such a change necessary.
On 9/11/18 12:29 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On September 11, 2018 at 9:50:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote:
Hi!
Any change to lisp-intro should be done by discussion with the RFC
Editor, as it is in the RFC Editor queue (pending reference completion).
If the working group considers it acceptable, we could easily ask them
to change the references to 6830 and 6833 to the bis documents (after
all, it is alreay blocked by documents which depend upon those.)
The reference would still be circular: rfc6830bis would point at
lisp-introduction for architecture details, and that would point back here.
If lisp-introduction was just that (an introduction) and the details
were in rfc6830 to start with…. Maybe the easy fix is to just not point
to lisp-introduction from rfc6830bis, because the details should be here
(and rfc6833bis) already.
s/Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture.//
Alvaro.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/10/18 11:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> If you guys have source for the intro doc, I could point it to bis
> documents?
>
> Dino
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *Resent-From:* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>> *Date:* September 10, 2018 at 2:22:21 PM PDT
>> *Resent-To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> *To:* "The IESG" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
>> *Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Luigi Iannone
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> *Subject:* *Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)*
>>
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks for the work on this document!
>>
>> I have some relatively minor comments/nits:
>>
>> (1) §18: s/RFC8060/RFC8061
>>
>> (2) §1: "Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP
>> architecture." First of all, it would seem to me that the
>> Architecture should
>> be a Normative reference...but I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction says that it
>> "is used
>> for introductory purposes, more details can be found in RFC6830, the
>> protocol
>> specification." This document obsoletes rfc6830...so it seems to me
>> that there
>> is a failed circular dependency.
>>
>> (3) References to rfc2119/rfc8174 and rfc8126 should be Normative.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
