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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Seems we are all in agreement. 

I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy. 

Thank you, Brian. 

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
> À : Brian E Carpenter
> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
> 
> > On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> >> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine with
> that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates 6833bis”.
> If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again).
> >
> > Yes, that would resolve my concern.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is confusing
> and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is
> not the case here.
> >
> > That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that
> "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies".
> "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to
> create confusion.
> 
> Then maybe those words should be used.
> 
> Dino
> 
> >
> > Thanks
> >   Brian
> >
> >>
> >> Dino
> >>
> >>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly:
> >>>
> >>> I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to 6833bis
> and to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis.
> >>>
> >>> I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination
> suggested would address his concern.
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>> Joel
> >>>
> >>> On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>>>> ngo
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >