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

Dino Farinacci <> Wed, 19 December 2018 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9F812F1A5; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4hU4WR-6HTkD; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD69F1276D0; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k12so20862369qtf.7; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQLhvRJyp1TobF8RDzTIYBv+g8FY01js8wYmwS7Xu7w=; b=GEz6h8Ee5B13J2L5swuPf7Y5JO920uG90IEmwqxAgmLJ4+gVPiB55I2ri406JtsKdg 4/pcuy78w7f4KKG8+mb4GdmiCwIWINgLbGvv9AblBs5fjxFFOUkuvHGJ3XHaP8OkL4Ac YdpHu3MicEuyL41ykz+OycZ1E8J4S2iNzXKi0ePDxbnjWAPNIjf5/YoQTYv2uwmxEQOH uYSkOm/OY4k5a6JfdFprwlcGWcSKIsIv+sxegEtRZXoEPGP+qkIWEmkYNAUFCC0ElX23 gx8eJEzNemqoOmOQS8f0NsW5KgjHNxu1b3jfya4mXEKTD6UiUHgA/hpa7ZZLMWR4F2i8 ffqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQLhvRJyp1TobF8RDzTIYBv+g8FY01js8wYmwS7Xu7w=; b=AkCEs8f63FapTnG8SD/qnlOwMUrrU6y8wvopwqowSjds98ZsuhRbUttcIAbDkINi+Q BKwaN8rSCZl76wMJpoDVZHy9fnPqa413V4el8u27HBiDPqHTX7leNKvztSCHyv+Fb/Xy s6FLP88Pvlpl/n74q8zbBc6ZqMLxFp6r58On0YD46LF4amATeuAoc+8uiFmeDSPFF5lL wV00B43wiBTsSDbH8mozXJg+ZPrla5twGGKF7tEpvg4TQnUw5mpaQ2Du9MF0N8XghfWu SwtYARcYoLxO/0QY+rRDItzqJ7zoWrIF1b5NP1pqDPrQbKCRuBCoGkGV0ktp9H9t91Qq W3ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWa9FEQyEC0MSLC1qyl14FkLAgkpQuZT56Y7q2dZkbG2OHaxz1hi r8f5XGdnGYthvw/ZbGZiMyQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Xn9wndRExVTyx4uSS95465Qe6g+W07wyjXBQCLx8XOA5fQjyaI6HUSYkyDFqD2j3hkbq71Pw==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3746:: with SMTP id i64mr19871583qtb.307.1545194606031; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 46sm1422019qtv.22.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:43:07 -0700
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>,,,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 04:43:29 -0000

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.


> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <> 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
>>>> <>.
>>>> 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