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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.
> 
>