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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE46130F8B; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzOzRDKuMo3D; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E81813121E; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id w7so5146693pgp.13; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ICYxC8ysrKGTrHaUWwKKEDJ7TNIeKk5cmclBFdqSn/0=; b=mIpiW5RtEiNPKV621CxcybHWeFpEJMRQMTSxehr17hlFLhD2+bmMFuptNzqR3i4Gm3 m7OJ1Msa2MtJeFaBfSPiMR9g0ouSY2YeDle6Tbf1iy805cUUDKna3WI+Qe0mP7sFAdkH sy7y+uKbby125MhFr87is/iiinDMH0zBBi75rVsJgst7Absy2Geho1DZvPaS0NLimQMZ j6cKpiAXVYjDfg4FC+kiIK9D9RX7ukGrgYnJnSTLyJU9vBhA+YQ9IcrwiGwTlMlEMxTy GQhbGV/ymj9KzYxPfdTGwV5bR4bZZv0wQqlojA13pUEJ5U+C/099iXkN2koxaXvt2RqJ Pi2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ICYxC8ysrKGTrHaUWwKKEDJ7TNIeKk5cmclBFdqSn/0=; b=JgDWhxbSbP0/ihYsShlfdYgW6k3RMdqkuGuCZgvxaa0qb214Ng74yf1DeIbipoY2U+ J2XnGI+Xh/f5uDpByHzQskRGCuPB5z2/J/HhUjXx+k4vXjfDTa75Ar5E/k7DWBEj7Qi9 Gx8+v0jt0RhLJuDEpWxFxPPwbjdRLrX7v9i2w4vGQrJ/2wG/spN6rS1W7EoB5uhIWunN biF6zHQoauLTQk3ci2QBlboYuqDtdjcMO4u2bF+MdB1uknAmPBD0KtUj5nzqJGl3WtAu NGcg8Ib7ZHkpuTSS76i+OVyla5ZWSpbsmHjo9o7QZv2LnePir3XgJAmKVwMfp+Z8QpXw FgIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukchxYmSujZgaA9Qt+6ErfvZbYeDjodOgAt82UG8gLJagj2cZAjN jzdhED+fpkCpR/hezy5H9Go=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5REVNZ8WyenYKkkYQG5eMg28O+IufWZqeEepIimLF4NzMSyMARx5mhqPkBioI2jkhEpyHxgg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4566:: with SMTP id u38mr10302576pgk.4.1547144966533; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.6.194] ([12.139.220.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 34sm113652465pgp.90.2019.01.10.10.29.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E063AFD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:29:24 -0800
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0DC65BF6-CF10-45A5-B8B2-E43124FD6EFF@gmail.com>
References: <154518630870.5131.10104452678736081639@ietfa.amsl.com> <da4ecf32-a1dd-1854-642e-77df66e61fdb@joelhalpern.com> <e439c990-7484-870f-f2fc-ac2300ae26d7@gmail.com> <f7ab6c01-b8bc-02ee-c491-da365d2e79ea@joelhalpern.com> <407BD77D-F364-4989-A6D2-C75DF9914402@gmail.com> <9cc58af9-2bcf-89d7-a2ae-3fc80e723d78@joelhalpern.com> <D12A1D05-F75D-46FF-A5AA-991817AA42BC@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05D7D4@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BAA2051B-A9E8-4D08-BD8C-EB7BD3FDB2AE@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05E137@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <B015DEB0-CFE2-4320-A33D-5478BDA16623@gmail.com> <dc81cad8-0bf5-9060-78a2-1537841ccf7d@gmail.com> <583bf0d5-3de8-adba-7445-54ec4779a345@joelhalpern.com> <48ED1BED-7055-4DF4-AF69-E764E5ADABDB@gmail.com> <c5c18e70-8128-8c40-5bca-20193ffa3208@gmail.com> <41802D01-0195-464C-9044-9AB0B58F8B72@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05ED1C@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E063AFD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6v3-pZz66yKg7gBKK3TShwrMm9E>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:29:30 -0000

Diff looks good to me. Thanks Med!

Dino

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 11:42 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, all,
> 
> The changes are now available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57
>> À : Dino Farinacci; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>> Objet : RE: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>> 
>> 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:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
>>> À : Brian E Carpenter
>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; gen-art@ietf.org;
>>> lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>>> 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 <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
>>> 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, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
>>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; 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:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
>>>>>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>>>>>>>>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org;
>>> lisp@ietf.org;
>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>> 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, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
>>>>>>>>>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; 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:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
>>>>>>>>>>>> À : Joel M. Halpern
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-
>>> ietf-lisp-
>>>>>>>>>>>> rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
>>> 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
>>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp