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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@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 38772130EFE; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:05 -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 1qsxW8S4C-mH; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (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 DE58E130E95; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id c25so1393756pgb.4; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/atzJpqwvLxiXGV9qoRcEK2hZjfDm1h13OZ4aO5VA8o=; b=YBfmAznEZtVyMPdzodzkbuxo+dNNj2F48+HuQCNxtLjXmMZwBEvfOIILjWeAHjdKiL 1gP2CqKgk2dzr4HGHWDdWo5O1koBPTkHW14ZJBH2rr7NWDzkFYLMCkEA1kt4tWI5tjKX DD46KOtHYFBaPuKOTXwQsEFhomD5rOBqHsORQOhNQCmrV8g/L0iqZ8XGArDAPVR2SIG+ 9pPaRdeb1Pl1sUXSqnVy+fluEBUerKJVeZWudN8ycoCmadehjj4Vnx794dZwqCrNCuSv pd2sB4E9J/VBOahImj0mPC3y/8VFLVCfoaRt+MZaqKZSX1aSA4wQfqox7Kq9F0PUBviX 9uvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/atzJpqwvLxiXGV9qoRcEK2hZjfDm1h13OZ4aO5VA8o=; b=KOWrKv3sBwH4003iN0SHJAQ6F2GM2pLho9PZasb7iaY7ntXOvOlg1VWpjF/Hr0UYVM /6r+MiggPH8QqddvAHhhCTJjNLf/avrAdCNm27w/ZxI1YwfwVvhrYgApTNOSbV0NtZKd 2hjgO9hN0JRaH7DBufAsMOOYnBTvOv8CcRfJ8ExxbcXxb7z+u/VPeYJx8q0MmZk5/Iq0 eeYMmJcy4bHyNagW56uf7EMjm/5sQpLAW3HOnfnSzjfOuwGhXXZnRNJLYSWkpn4YDlsY lcNKlOzjJ2OVYCrsdPZq9PM1n9v2X367izSdDyR9vwtQlsfrKyGI8R+wjpHDMyCDUVRw C11Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZHWuSH99g8bvB+19QrACC/9rmYYPyTTrtQv1CJlQIotot1fPzL JL1hvE5lFwUmeHcxwHXAcKo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Uemqt9CgMcnfygFBvjDk8rLYcoODxGeyaFr7EsmX69C+PjS3Rw2NxlK4B57HYxYJzhcC75Ag==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:546:: with SMTP id 67mr24995104pff.99.1545337141136; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.31.79.215] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n66sm32362763pfk.19.2018.12.20.12.18.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:19:00 -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 <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <583bf0d5-3de8-adba-7445-54ec4779a345@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:18:59 -0800
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <48ED1BED-7055-4DF4-AF69-E764E5ADABDB@gmail.com>
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> <dc81cad8-0bf5-9060-78a2-1537841ccf7d@gmail.com> <583bf0d5-3de8-adba-7445-54ec4779a345@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/n9ryZb4U5-P6E2Pn2oSe1w4F-SE>
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 20:19:05 -0000

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).

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.

Dino

> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; 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, <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
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>