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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>>
>>
> 
>