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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 792A51311E7; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:52 -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 mpmjmsP-sVqe; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) (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 294D01311E8; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id g189so1362108pgc.5; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lSnuhbWhUR1BXP7gB1Ljny54HcZ8drPLhoTdASOpFiA=; b=ianYe07fy0VxKLC8YlH4wobYd+ipCNHhgD8QmOut0eyTXgWlOrqG4EH+zMzOWrJbF/ bWDjWP8ZlxO/nNdJZqxNOrLBF9LHOQwnBQVai0/oWrnywTZgAKjEVrc/pP2S9oSR7IBc aVBfwo3l3gnz7Sf24Un8Atx3rJb1iGF1EISJcWiTPpuPvc7mts17zwcsT7eckE/Amduf TX/JCYORbC2LIsMo2kM3wtdzSAEnfT/ZOyLe83o8bkaN2P2kp0W/PBiirrxXV3Fx1vxB TxNFCx5H+/v+YFlRfSXOKgAw5oOE28D36n9OKhehLfNBXimmHQGBzYpkRgC9W9uk8YoM ULCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lSnuhbWhUR1BXP7gB1Ljny54HcZ8drPLhoTdASOpFiA=; b=T8BR8AnJZeQQSO5JJR2S52IR/k9soGGXHBeZ8bLDJhGTXOJnvMRoi3mMNYfszdNZsd cBqR9+2kU2mf/IoeeRtWXIeeMd5HLcVfBIOn3aNHTzDNhE/l5Clq8bLOv8v3H1HZaxY/ 24AamgzwMsbfnJN14zcw55bOi/HpjXkoSgPqngyRZry0He8OfIUQxois2Hp+ZJ2HZBi3 uy+0dUeYUL/eBQQXB10zr7Hh0Wl0C9fQQkMJsERUrZJ1evxQeAdR+ho6kAfBi1e1hnkL F5SdnXFJHL8VFgzKKGGrGvL9pyrzPVyvqYcJORaf/Q4nS+nahe6MlDYJuiowXGtEG5wY IOLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaW1n+b0PvZKGA+NRHoAfYbKkuBzAJfiiVWzscSiGjY4pJ/Z2KV 63jtlW6jzoFqHleablzD0LwzyMSK+JY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UvGvoPp02TucigO9kdCLySAukbD1xQITJc1ZPMx/qrkxq5n8uaUhU6NTCuuYbFQH9Z+TyTDQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:cf84:: with SMTP id b126mr25285339pfg.98.1545335747194; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i73sm32749758pfi.66.2018.12.20.11.55.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:55:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.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>
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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dc81cad8-0bf5-9060-78a2-1537841ccf7d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:55:39 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B015DEB0-CFE2-4320-A33D-5478BDA16623@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cfX6BfJwGfjGSIX_y8jIeFCFwY0>
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 19:55:52 -0000

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, <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
>>>>
>>
> 
>