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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 3BBA21310A2; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 23:35:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 az1oFK9gh6K2; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 23:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8139213109F; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 23:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43L3TF01rJz20fQ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:35:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.24]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43L3TD6CXgzFpXT; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:35:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9044:c5ee:4dd2:4f16%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:35:44 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
CC: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 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>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHUl8SrGurFpIpzE0eaxl1ntjJuYKWHPS/w
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:35:43 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05E137@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
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>
In-Reply-To: <BAA2051B-A9E8-4D08-BD8C-EB7BD3FDB2AE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/OPzQzKvuxtnz0HV5UrsnJRkkZ60>
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, 20 Dec 2018 07:35:50 -0000

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
> >