Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

Regarding obsoleting other work, it makes sense to me that work that becomes de-facto obsolete as a result of 5512 being obsoleted, should also be obsoleted. Just seems like good document hygiene.

I assume that does NOT imply that this document would need to provide replacements for the obsoleted specifications. As you say below, that’s a different track of work and can be pursued independently. We’re just talking about adding two more document numbers to the Obsoletes header, right?

Thanks,

—John

On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

(1) Obsoleting other work

This document deprecates the Encapsulation SAFI because it "has never
been used in production".  What about other work that specifies the
use of the Encapsulation SAFI?  Should they also be Obsoleted by this
document?  [Yes, I know there was a long discussion on the list, which
resulted in the text in §1.4.]

Both rfc5566 (mentioned in §1.4) and rfc5640 specify the use of the
Encapsulation SAFI.  Is there interest in Updating those RFCs?  If
not, then it seems like the easy thing to do is to Obsolete that work
with this document.  If there is, then I agree with the text in §1.4
in that the effort would be out of scope of this document.  In either
case, I think that §1.4 raises more questions than it answers and is
not needed in this document.

John: As Shepherd, can you please ping the WG (you may have to reach
out to bess as well) about potential interest in Updating
rfc5566/rfc5640.  I won't hold this document waiting for the
resolution, but having an idea of any interest would be nice.
Interest has been expressed for rfc5566bis [1], but didn't see
anything related to rfc5640.  BTW, the mailing list contains
discussion about other IPsec-related drafts that use tunnel-encap; I'm
not sure of their relationship (if any) to rfc5566.