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

[<[e-mail]>]

I confirm. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:58
> À : Brian E Carpenter; Dino Farinacci; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-lisp-
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
> 
> 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
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >