Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, [e-mail] (
[e-mail]) wrote:

>
> [...]
>
>
> M8. References
>
>
> M8.1. TUNNEL-ENCAP (aka ) should be
> Normative, which btw is marked to Obsolete rfc5512; I mention this
> because both are listed in several parts, so you should take
> rfc5512 out.
>
>
> This was debated on a while ago, and this is somehow the conclusion of
> the discussion:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/z1J2VD9rtCQC7NHnmi_4tz_bR_w
>
> Copy-paste:
> ----
> We'll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect
> to Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of
> idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft
> itself references RFC 5512.
>
> During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if
> we see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the
> reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap
> Normative. Otherwise, we'll keep both references with RFC 5512 as
> Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative.
> ----
>
> The question probably is whether or not idr-tunnel-encap progress is
> sufficient.
>
If anything, both references should at least be of the same type: I can see
no reasoning why one would be Normative and the other Informative.

In this case, idr-tunnel-encap already went through WGLC (according to the
datatracker) — we can’t ignore the fact that idr has consensus on
deprecating rfc5512.  Again, we don’t need both references.



>
>
>
>
> M8.2. These should also be Normative: RFC7348, NVGRE, VXLAN-GPE,
> RFC4023
>
>
> My process fu is weakening, but if this specification is standard track
> (and I believe it should be), I believe it can't normatively depend on
> Informative specs and some of the above are in this category.
>
It can if we call the Down References out in the IETF Last Call and no one
opposes.  I think we already processed at least one document with a DownRef
toVXLAN, so I don’t think that’s a problem.

In any case, the type of Reference should be decided based on the real
dependency of the document, not on its status.

Thanks!

Alvaro.