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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 05:37 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 C59BA12D84D; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] 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 Bk17NzXwIgNK; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (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 6C37512426A; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id gn14so8946628plb.10; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:30 -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=ZwQjqAo7ixmW7Fi7tPNu5gYcdpCSKLvecHhwEs/osDc=; b=JPIvY5ximYvvr7UJY6ULbKdC5RXS0GY4rWTHmI405NgLI9pKMtM9PU+/bPs+Pnl/GE 7x6B5NGnlRhP8BGSG0ei8Pa78Dzh3esByelvCaPXCp1E/838z7z7WoU5dFF2x1QB3J/D fE3zyO2r/GsGN83he9Qq1UDx2cfROjmM1NtV6NwRHs28vbnGyQ3qRfrSkRpWZ5ecpEBT puASCmanebIwq6ThuF0Wz41acwSrO0zN6ozQFGqR1gNEHc0n3Y1ehhMKU93NvZahplxQ BUfcAt9gvbKvEEI3nj4+/IbTRHjREZC/a66PNEh1/bFudIwQMIr3KSXq/qtKdlToh8KA 1GJQ==
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=ZwQjqAo7ixmW7Fi7tPNu5gYcdpCSKLvecHhwEs/osDc=; b=kcKNccNd5o2r8C97D9IKVxQ7DjeH2nYv/0Kq+h3Wt48omwsC4bnfozLD67VhQIBX+A cJkgTO1FRQIBdXk5pLsmAVe8hXM4gEzpu3xCaSStlMtBtBqViS6dASjJpHG/Ge76Tjx5 7RjXkdmw7x41BGL45kWLaWpzXIUokblDpOocnGvzCWm29K58h4OF0TaR08N7yOJZr0IU TGoeffMg+fIfBwFYFfpkKAfjbBGxHhe4XHpO8TMCNh3qNGdqJxGYvR1sQfOf9GShSpjf pQPGgaFbieY0LCurLVzr1ONI25NftU0/m+AWQXGXmVlWAMI6AVNjtXJxA77b/SKapQL7 LNjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZG9uj6xD60qJVsEGYOiSm4nJ44eh6noq0SdQ4FxLIiYWZ6kD3O +vDZSKvqX2F1+Sqq2U34SB4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Uzn1sq7sAwU2JsaTxwA7WmOXmuAtD7K4od+UNZiIKGoeECWTLCJAyfUvIFCj2sVYLKbnO+9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7c85:: with SMTP id y5mr18968500pll.63.1545197849973; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:104f:3347:f01d:b2d2? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:104f:3347:f01d:b2d2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h74sm25072205pfd.35.2018.12.18.21.37.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:29 -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: <9cc58af9-2bcf-89d7-a2ae-3fc80e723d78@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:37:27 -0800
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D12A1D05-F75D-46FF-A5AA-991817AA42BC@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>
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/vB2PRgRJXLE5KiH91LJCRXLcbGY>
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 05:37:33 -0000

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