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

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
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 