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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 18:00 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 7D5CC130E86; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:10 -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 PhWLkhZmw3lu; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 DCFE5130E95; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id r136so3116465pfc.6; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:07 -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=frrJncUTF5SqXktto9o+VAuiFlrM6b9BO6/GadLvYWk=; b=vNbg9g5n2leH9Nvzmia/FeScahK46snKb/PrmKQBlj/MQv4NsZ2Ey2+gichrVW63jh otAGov/5B9ULziSGitJvZIVpKYs5+UITklrxYqtGge8mrLPQgqW2ne/yaKknAifN8ySM yPQbc+AysKAO7PYLeaFnsQKleua3UfVpcZCKa9vZ9DtH86mXuLij6zRkCJwhxxtYU8fQ DyjEgWu1EhMXBg6neF0QHZLfFnonL+MYKhztQuZvgg+r5Sxc/p5thJVcIXkHf3wuRXGs 40G8RmJuDMfAW1sUh1bjpT52RTbLgC2Gt9iHyLMQ+X88Ti3808ZMLzzvHh8fSmWXfVTI ao6g==
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=frrJncUTF5SqXktto9o+VAuiFlrM6b9BO6/GadLvYWk=; b=YArzTEu3smWZg33PLEJpqi2oYeooTVfuRtcoL+ddktGq6C0qOdY957Ud16vH+yT/ab F5rbKhpQkbJiACX6/EyeLvcHabQBufhwE1/PaM9igxcQ0KVoUeiuHNpmKEocLE/0eiNL v0LTFC6WrMdbvgM89P/1reqWYk8pQWmLVxBCkauXX3HA+mVW9kmhZJwpUToApyEk5ZR4 67JHlGmggDle2xYRFAGiBG5t06ojwUvhoGoXKFSUTJulTDo3OlkWJXva6vEAZw37G4hw CwjbKSNwv8xiG6UCb1kOyRyPbreZgCfAmRrb/AGnhfRnjS4lDniUBMc/J1PqP3LeXdIE WJjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZEA0VK0Frw3HRPVdKkD1NVIkyZBd5zeFxcfVat1a0vELJZHEBz Bv+ycJQHWgTGbyqqsGguptM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WdLO39YYknd+RYM50glQHgY2JdenC1Ul1qQ9Xi70j3LhnNa7j6QTmlDioiK7M4ZwtoT5TDEA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6cc:: with SMTP id 195mr20351697pgg.401.1545242407379; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.31.79.215] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m3sm32343463pff.173.2018.12.19.10.00.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:06 -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: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05D7D4@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:00:05 -0800
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BAA2051B-A9E8-4D08-BD8C-EB7BD3FDB2AE@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> <D12A1D05-F75D-46FF-A5AA-991817AA42BC@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E05D7D4@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zhjFcQVUGZoZXaJ0bxv6K8GzYkw>
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 18:00:11 -0000

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
>