Hi Donald,
> On Dec 13, 2023, at 00:50, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:53 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Donald,
>>
>> See some discussion inline regarding the IANA Considerations, RFC
>> 7042, and RFC 7042BIS.
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2023, at 6:21 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Minor Issues:
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Section 11 IANA Considerations: This needs to direct IANA to update
>>> references to RFC 5798. Suggest adding wording like: "IANA is
>>> requested to update all IANA Registry references to [RFC5798] to be
>>> references to [this document]." (Alternatively, instead of “all IANA
>>> Registries” it could list the protocol number, 48-bit MAC address
>>> block, IPv4 multicast address local network control block, and IPv6
>>> link-local scope multicast addresses registries.)
>>
>> I don’t mind adding this at the start but since this document
>> obsoletes RFC 5798, I believe it should still contain all the IANA
>> references in the “IANA Considerations”.
>
> Sure, I said nothing about removing anything in Section 11. I just
> suggested one sentence to be added where that sentence included
> either the words "all IANA Registries" or a more specific list of
> the relevant registries.
>
>>> Nits:
>>> -----
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Section 1.1, Point 2: I believe it is good practice to include the
>>> Errata fixed by a revision in the Informational References. As an
>>> example, RFC 7176 fixes Errata 2869 in RFC 6326 which it obsoletes and
>>> thus the Informational References for RFC 7176 include the following:
>>> [Err2869] RFC Errata, Errata ID 2869, RFC 6326,
>>> <http://www.rfc-editor.org>
>>
>> I don’t agree that listing the Errata on an obsoleted draft is a
>> good practice. I’m not going to do this.
>
> Then we diagree. The Errata are a reference for the statement in
> rfc5798bis that Errata are fixed and I would not suggest the
> reference if there were not such a statement in the document. But it's
> not that important.
>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Section 8.3.1 Potential Forwarding Loop: There is a word missing in
>>> the final one-sentence paragraph. Suggest "…Routers to these
>>> forwarding…" -> "…Routers avoid to these forwarding…".
>
> I put the missing word in the wrong place above, It should have been
> "…Routers to avoid these forwarding…"
>
>>> Section 11 IANA Considerations: The reference to [RFC7042] should be
>>> replaced by a reference to the rfc7042bis draft.
>>
>> RFC 7042 is a normative reference currently. If I were to update the
>> reference, I’d want to make it informative as not to gate this draft
>> just based on an IANA registry name update. I believe it was you who
>> suggested adding this reference in the first place. Can you suggest
>> updated text if I update the reference?
>
> I don't see why any gating should occur since rfc7042bis seems to be
> ahead of rfc5798bis in the process. I suggest you just put in a
> reference to [RFC7042] in Section 7.3 where I had suggested a
> reference to rfc7042bis and ignore my suggestion above re Section
> 11. If I am correct, as rfc5798bis proceeds through the process, at
> AUTH-48 or before, IANA or some AD will point out to you that RFC 7042
> has been / is being obsoleted and ask about updating the reference
> to be to the RFC-to-be that the rfc7042bis draft turns into. If this
> happens, I request that you accept this change.
Actually, your review sort of came out of nowhere as this RFC 5798 BIS has
already had both an early (although it was quite late) and IETF last call
review. It is on the IEGG telecast on 1-4-2024. It you looked at the
datatracker you would have seen this 😎
Are you suggesting any changes to the IANA Considerations text as well? As the
primary author of RFC 7048, I specifically asked you to look at this.Did you
miss this? Here is the current text:
In the "IANA MAC ADDRESS BLOCK" registry [RFC7042], IANA has assigned
blocks of Ethernet unicast addresses as follows (in hexadecimal):
00-01-00 to 00-01-FF VRRP
00-02-00 to 00-02-FF VRRP IPv6
If not, there is no advantage to updating the reference. Actually, even if the
registry name and/or format is changing, there really isn’t a significant
advantage to wait for the RFC7048BIS draft to publish as the two allocations in
the current format.
Thanks,
Acee
>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> [email protected]
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
