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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 87365130F94; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 duMauP2hQA2Q; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (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 E660A130F6D; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id w73so5776643pfk.10; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3quV9qhYScPtF/K5PBNvvgDZtcBKvhv16IBxIzlop44=; b=E/G1g6LxrpboTvk3UygJSTDZXMmIu0W2qHKzRoCxqH1sipEN72MllSUo8yTv3Ervws GgKyNkwia6xNGbGeK/O7YEkrmE4fjugUmjLjw6+f4I2o6FXUWr6XPkrCOoWgJwb5WwsY 1mIWoWFE0Z34URjgAit1+ga5+KCdV8IhQ1pzLTqn9PAs6PPnwIwgO8iEb1YGM3dLabzY 4eIOqjpXjPpGaAZx0uM91LQTUIMDAcHXW9qK5al6jA8JdfRzAEu4fVQIOGg8SgCjgwdY UH2gPWCZlH2XTH1rTemqdSSoS4yiFIzWvxN4XGqw37sRrVv5+I2yl50Gw8micI59prmg cnHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3quV9qhYScPtF/K5PBNvvgDZtcBKvhv16IBxIzlop44=; b=GLJ4TnYR8CAIoHFVogYu++Um2OkIYn5eWGfedJvKGxguyW0oKgesxrvhgbmBJkrN7B 6XohKaE0BBMy4peray4j5dGtq8nKm/f9qjBS1YGGtWIkcsG/3mson89F99YzL3wXDXa6 0Aa2z+J7cGZK0nSV9KaLNfAOD6MfO6aCiFfhJ2YoEQ3DQ3nslAWQ43nh4d3UdbVR9M4T RoGIrAIti2WpbJ429+2LeHgHfROXwpK9xEs0jYCr9hc2m9bqQTftdtWWH2Co6GSOVDZO VpE9NiEd6146a/IL5mxKqhWMt5qWZb54q68Bev1jWok7RX91IevFD/NcBf9yL0DN1rZ2 Fh7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdUkOFiUGl/Qak1gbyUvX1dWGZ8vPYQsuL6gCO/JYq0NqewbjsL KgSj9ojQwktWscSoP7njdmNyRmdo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7oTU+h0FViR30UtyOzfSxJK+TPGFn0ruivTbx4ag2De6+C4NefvdmmrRZxylAP9DYMulYiTA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:644:: with SMTP id 65mr11555301pfg.161.1547150090000; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r1sm4747914pgo.17.2019.01.10.11.54.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:54:49 -0800 (PST)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org>
References: <154518630870.5131.10104452678736081639@ietfa.amsl.com> <f7ab6c01-b8bc-02ee-c491-da365d2e79ea@joelhalpern.com> <407BD77D-F364-4989-A6D2-C75DF9914402@gmail.com> <9cc58af9-2bcf-89d7-a2ae-3fc80e723d78@joelhalpern.com> <D12A1D05-F75D-46FF-A5AA-991817AA42BC@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05D7D4@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BAA2051B-A9E8-4D08-BD8C-EB7BD3FDB2AE@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05E137@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <B015DEB0-CFE2-4320-A33D-5478BDA16623@gmail.com> <dc81cad8-0bf5-9060-78a2-1537841ccf7d@gmail.com> <583bf0d5-3de8-adba-7445-54ec4779a345@joelhalpern.com> <48ED1BED-7055-4DF4-AF69-E764E5ADABDB@gmail.com> <c5c18e70-8128-8c40-5bca-20193ffa3208@gmail.com> <41802D01-0195-464C-9044-9AB0B58F8B72@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05ED1C@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E063AFD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <213e6b32-6bb0-7f78-2672-43105167a6ac@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 08:54:43 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E063AFD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/xJe_Bzk-WuII6EWCOtJRd-FIVwU>
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:54:54 -0000

Hi Med,

That looks fine to me. Thanks!

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2019-01-10 20:42, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Brian, all,
> 
> The changes are now available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57
>> À : Dino Farinacci; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; 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
>>
>> Re-,
>>
>> Seems we are all in agreement.
>>
>> I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy.
>>
>> Thank you, Brian.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>>
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
>>> À : Brian E Carpenter
>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; 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
>>>
>>>> On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine
>> with
>>> that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates
>> 6833bis”.
>>> If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that would resolve my concern.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>>> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is
>> confusing
>>> and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is
>>> not the case here.
>>>>
>>>> That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that
>>> "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies".
>>> "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to
>>> create confusion.
>>>
>>> Then maybe those words should be used.
>>>
>>> Dino
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>   Brian
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dino
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> ngo
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>