Re: [Gen-art] [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
> 