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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B551276D0; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:36 -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 8ITdoqpTL6Qv; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -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 AD3B1123FFD; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43KMH62YxtzVhQc; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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
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 43KMH52TVszVhKq; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:24:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Brian E Carpenter <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] 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 04:24:37 -0000

Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?


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.