Re: [Gen-art] [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