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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 A8B551276D0; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 8ITdoqpTL6Qv; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila1.tigertech.net (maila1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3B1123FFD; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43KMH62YxtzVhQc; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1545193474; bh=rDdINl5v3HErPISGff0+0hJQiXLxXB7Pjb/FUpipPdc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=n1RyTv9+ftsUDRtZBS1oyAAehrjka/JFRqNT45shnO+4JzJr/DXNFh+A2oM8yA5eH jxBvI+GOQ7mlxNwDBlWQXpayJEUpWFZmXLKHcYL/l1ynU7F1kcvKb8xw/w85P+1Swb vV6xF2YcbfreXhOrfhwlXQ6tLPXdNSFqoKmQmQd4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila1.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43KMH52TVszVhKq; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
References: <154518630870.5131.10104452678736081639@ietfa.amsl.com> <da4ecf32-a1dd-1854-642e-77df66e61fdb@joelhalpern.com> <e439c990-7484-870f-f2fc-ac2300ae26d7@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <f7ab6c01-b8bc-02ee-c491-da365d2e79ea@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:24:31 -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: <e439c990-7484-870f-f2fc-ac2300ae26d7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/v2wq2-cJbKtoVN73wAcyyveNeDo>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] 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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 04:24:37 -0000

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>