Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Thanks all.

Dino

> On Dec 20, 2018, at 10:57 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Seems we are all in agreement. 
> 
> I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy. 
> 
> Thank you, Brian. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
>> À : Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>> 
>>> On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine with
>> that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates 6833bis”.
>> If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again).
>>> 
>>> Yes, that would resolve my concern.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>>> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is confusing
>> and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is
>> not the case here.
>>> 
>>> That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that
>> "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies".
>> "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to
>> create confusion.
>> 
>> Then maybe those words should be used.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>>  Brian
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dino
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to 6833bis
>> and to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination
>> suggested would address his concern.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>> I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can
>>>>>> logically cite 8113, which it replaces.
>>>>>> Frankly I think you've collectively created a plate of citation
>>>>>> spaghetti by not moving the IANA considerations for the type field
>>>>>> registry into 6830bis, which is where they naturally belong. If you
>>>>>> don't want to do that, I think you have to leave them in 8113bis and
>>>>>> simply lose the citation of 6833bis, which serves no purpose that
>>>>>> I can see.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>  Brian
>>>>>> On 2018-12-21 06:32, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>>>> I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>> ngo
>>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <[e-mail]>
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Dino,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>>>>> procedures in [RFC8126].
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards
>>>>>>>> Action [RFC8113].
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
>>>>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>>>>>>>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis-01
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What does fixing in (1) mean?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by
>> the WG.
>>>>>>>>> You may refer, for example, to the message from Deborah which
>> clarifies this
>>>>>>>>> point: https://www.ietf.org/mail-
>> archive/web/lisp/current/msg07886.html. One
>>>>>>>>> of the outcomes of that discussion is to add an "updates" header to
>> 8113bis.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, one of the issues that led to that conclusion was whether to
>> cite
>>>>>>>>> rfc8113bis as normative in 6833bis (the approach I initially
>> supported) and
>>>>>>>>> agreed by Dino (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
>>>>>>>>> archive/web/lisp/current/msg07882.html). Deborah convinced me that
>> citing
>>>>>>>>> 8113bis will lead to circular dependency. Which is a fair argument.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The "updates" tag was justified as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> (1)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> RFC6833bis includes the following:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>>>>>>> procedures in [RFC8126].
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That text is updated by RFC8113bis to be aligned with 8113:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Values can be assigned via Standards Action
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> RFC8113bis extends the type field to grab more bits/values when the
>>>>>>>>> available types are exhausted. This is captured in 8113bis:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action.
>>>>>>>>>> This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the
>>>>>>>>>> exhaustion of the LISP Packet types.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dino: If (1) is fixed directly in RFC6833bis, then I'm fine to
>> remove the
>>>>>>>>> "updates" header because (2) can be also seen as an extension.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>>>>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
>>>>>>>>>>> À : Joel M. Halpern
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-
>> ietf-lisp-
>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis-
>>>>>>>>> 01
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Mohmad to comment.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the other fix he offered.  Just remove the updates tag.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is
>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we
>> can have
>>>>>>>>>>> more types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because
>> it can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so
>> there can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> another format to have more types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern
>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base
>> LISP
>>>>>>>>> specs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis /
>> 6833bis
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized
>> that
>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move to PS along with everything else.  It seemed (and is)
>> simpler
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it separately rather than to further modify 6830bis /
>> 6933bis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for why it updates 6833bis, that is because one of the
>> cahnges in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving the set to PS was to improve the split as to which
>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belonged in which document.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, but I still don't find it logical The text doesn't explain
>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6833bis is impacted, and normally these days we require such an
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if there is an impact, you're missing the opportunity of
>> fixing
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or gap in 6833bis, so the reader of 6833bis will be none the
>> wiser
>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you insert a reference to 8113bis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if there is no error or gap, you don't need
>>>>>>>>>>> "Updates:"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. (Unfortunately, we don't have an "Extends:" header.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 9:25 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The
>> General Area
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
>> processed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments
>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like any other last call comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-12-19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the
>> standards
>>>>>>>>>>> track.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text
>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to
>> RFC8113, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why
>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume
>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types
>> registry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it
>> belongs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG
>> review,
>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is
>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> rfc8113bis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read
>> 8113bis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>