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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Wed, 19 December 2018 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1434012D84D; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:49:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5YsBP7EK1KA; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2926F1276D0; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43KMrD6Lz3zVhKq; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:49:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1545194988; bh=TOXXh/sRNXpGK9Vu+eUlWJeB6+pLRWKYsDo3s0AztGc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=A6H3iyb4n9I4sSuuKGz/9gGssnqYGA7P1J0zWVM0SmFuBr/iMwlyA/LQqw6K+ULSX 6bcEKE8osORHAOfdXQXpvlzUz0B43JVqFWElM/daBkwZLe7n3LxqpDsEnstNONH/f7 NV1WI/ykRK3ZWHWleSwg3nu+bT0qCud3VFQE5qcU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43KMrD1Gf1zVhDk; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:49:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Dino Farinacci <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>,,,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:49:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 04:49:51 -0000

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.

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 <> 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