I am in complete agreement with the points Tom has made. AFAICT, the only new content in this draft is Section 4 - the rest is either boilerplate or a repetition of text already present in RFC 5309 or RFC 8343. Neither the Abstract nor the Introduction makes that clear. The abstract actually claims to
"defines point-to-point interface type" which is both FALSE (already defined in RFC 5309) and incorrectly named - since the document is actually discussing "point-to-point operation over LAN". Regarding the IANA section, it is clear that the draft is NOT creating new entries - rather it is modifying existing entries. And it isn’t modifying the code points, the names, or the descriptions - it only seeks to modify the references to include "this document". But the text in the IANA section states otherwise: " IANA need to update the "Interface Types(ifType)" registry...with the following status types" I don’t know whether the content in Section 4 is sufficient to claim a reference, but if it is it should only be in addition to the existing reference. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:13 AM > To: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; Harold Liu > <harold.liu=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt > > Tom, 5309 did not define the ifType. Go read 5309. You seem to have > gotten confused by the fact that the IANA entry given to 303 points to > 5309. That was done to have some reference (with the consent of the > experts). What we are doing now is providing a better reference. So > yes, this document defines how the ifType is defined. With no criticism > of 5309, it does not define that, since it does not define the ifType. > > We are explicit in this draft that one of the obvious uses for this > ifType is to trigger 5309 behavior. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/21/2021 4:41 AM, tom petch wrote: > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Harold Liu > <harold.liu=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Sent: 21 June 2021 02:01 > > > > Hi Med and All: > > Thanks for your helpful comments, I have updated a new version 01 to > follow the comments; > > The main updating is: > > 1. More clearly described the intend of this draft in the > > introduction; > > 2. Change the reference style; > > 3. Refactor the reference section to make it more reasonable; > > 4. I haven't change "IANA Consideration" at the moment given there > > is > lots of discussion in this part and it is still up in the air, I will change > this section > next update the document once this part is finalized; > > > > <tp> > > I still think that this is an unsatisfactory I-D and would oppose adoption > > in its > present form, > > > > It is a question of veracity. It claims to do what others have already done > and does so without reference, without acknowledgement. Having the > same data defined in more than one place can only create confusion, in > future if not now. > > > > This is a pattern and starts with the Abstract and continues throughout the > I-D. > > > > Thus the Abstract claims 'this defines point-to-point interface type'. No. > This type was defined in RFC5309 and you need to say that and to say what if > anything you are changing in that definition. You should not reproduce text > from that RFC unless you have to and then you should make it clear you are > quoting. > > > > You do the same with Figure 1. This is a copy, may be accurate may be not, > it does not matter, from RFC8343 with no mention thereof. You should not > be reproducing such text without a good reason and then you should make it > clear what is reproduced, from where and why. > > > > And as I have said already, IANA Considerations is yet again claiming to do > what has already happened which can only confuse. All that is needed as I > said in a separate note is to ask IANA to update two references, nothing > more. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > And I would like to share more background information for this > > internet > draft: > > As Joel mentioned, we requested and received an IF Type assignment > from IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet links several > weeks ago and the p2pOverLan type is already added to IANA registry now; > > During the discussion around the assignment we noticed a doc > describing why that is needed and how to use that would be helpful; > > For example, if no entry saying p2pOverLan layer over ethernet, the > management will suffer since lose the ability to get to the Ethernet-specific > management properties (Ethernet MIB or YANG model) via many tools; So > we propose this draft to define a complete p2pOverLan ifStack(Including > higher layer and lower layer); > > > > Brs > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:16 PM > > To: Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>; draft-liu-lsr- > p2pover...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt > > > > Hi Joel, all, > > > > Please find some quick comments to this draft, fwiw: > > > > * pdf: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e8e7d1aa-b77ce948- > e8e79131-86073b36ea28-edbd778070bbec9a&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-41fd- > bf1b-56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF- > Drafts-Reviews%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00- > rev%2520Med.pdf > > * doc: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=938b5849-cc1060ab- > 938b18d2-86073b36ea28-e0406a2599fa2a6d&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-41fd- > bf1b-56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF- > Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00- > rev%2520Med.docx > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern > >> Envoyé : mercredi 16 juin 2021 22:47 À : Acee Lindem (acee) > >> <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: > >> draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt > >> > >> This document (and the code point) are intended to be in line with > >> 5309. > >> I believe they are. If we got it wrong, please help us fix it. > >> > >> A reference would be reasonable to add. (The IANA entry for the code > >> point does reference 5309.) > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Joel > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/16/2021 4:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >>> Hi Joel, > >>> > >>> At first I wondered where this document should reside and then > >> decided that LSR is probably as good as any other place. > >>> > >>> Can you guys check whether it is mostly in line with > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5309/ and comment as to whether it > >> should be referenced? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Acee > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/16/21, 11:10 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <lsr- > >> boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Recently, Ericsson requested and received an IF Type > >> assignment from > >>> IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet > >> links. > >>> > >>> It was noted during the discussion around the assignment that > >> a document > >>> (eventually, we hope, an RFC) describing how to use that and > >> why we > >>> asked for it would be helpful. > >>> > >>> The below announcement is that draft. We would like to work > >> with the > >>> community to improve and clarify teh draft. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Joel > >>> > >>> > >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- > >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt > >>> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:00:04 -0700 > >>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > >>> Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org > >>> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > >>> > >>> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet- > >> Drafts > >>> directories. > >>> > >>> > >>> Title : Interface Stack Table Definition > >> for Point to > >>> Point (P2P) Interface over LAN > >>> Authors : Daiying Liu > >>> Joel Halpern > >>> Congjie Zhang > >>> Filename : draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt > >>> Pages : 7 > >>> Date : 2021-06-16 > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> The point-to-point circuit type is one of the mainly used > >> circuit > >>> types in link state routing protocol. It is important to > >> identify > >>> the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies, > >> flooding link > >>> state database packets, and monitor the link state. This > >> document > >>> defines point-to-point interface type and relevant stack > >> tables to > >>> provide benefit for operation, maintenance and > >> statistics. > >>> > >>> > >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan/ > >>> > >>> There is also an htmlized version available at: > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-lsr- > >> p2poverlan-00 > >>> > >>> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> I-D-Announce mailing list > >>> i-d-annou...@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Lsr mailing list > >>> Lsr@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lsr mailing list > >> Lsr@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > __________________________________________________________ > _____ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites > ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez > le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute > responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > > delete > this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr