Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Stewart, thanks for your review. I have entered a DISCUSS ballot on this point.

Alissa

> On Aug 27, 2018, at 2:55 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Clearly I think it makes better sense to sequence the drafts in dependency order so that everything lines up.
> 
> However, ultimately that is a decision to be made by the Chair and responsible AD.
> 
> Stewart
> 
> On 27/08/2018 08:48, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>> Hi Steward,
>> 
>> see inline….
>> 
>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 12:58, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
>>> Review result: Ready
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
>>> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
>>> Review Date: 2018-08-24
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-06
>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> 
>>> This is a well written draft, and I assume that everyone in the WG is happy
>>> that the reduction in size of the Nonce/Map-Version field will not be a problem
>>> in operational networks.
>>> 
>>> However, I do have a question of why this is being published now on the
>>> Standards Track with a normative reference to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis.
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis is only a few weeks old. It will take its time to get
>>> through the IETF process and of course technically may change. If 
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-gpe is approved by the IESG  it will simply sit on the RFC
>>> Editor's queue until draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis gets through the system, and even
>>> then if there is a change to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis, then draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
>>> may need to be pulled all the way back to the WG depending on the nature of the
>>> change.
>>> 
>>> Maybe the plan is that ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis will only take a short while to
>>> finish because I see that other bis drafts will also stall on it. If not I
>>> would have thought that a better approach would be to make this experimental
>>> and point to RFC6834. Then, when RFC6834bis is published to make this draft a
>>> PS pointing to it.
>> 
>> These are we small documents. I am not sure this would really be necessary. 
>> We do not expect big changes in any bis document, since they are just the PS version of deployed technology. 
>> So the risk to have the gee document come back to the WG to do any change is quite inexistent.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Whatever the conclusion this matter will need to be clearly written up in the
>>> Shepherd's report.
>> 
>> I am the shepherd of the document and I duly pointed out this fact in my writeup, check point 14 of:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/>
>> 
>> Ciao
>> 
>> L.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Major issues: No technical issues, but see summary.
>>> 
>>> Minor issues: None
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments: None
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art