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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 27, 2020 at 5:21:04 PM, John Scudder wrote:


John:

Hi!


> 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?

Yes, correct -- and a sentence to the Abstract/Introduction.

I think that the decision to add those documents, or not, depends on
whether the effort to Update them (if there is interest) starts soon
or not (soon = by the time this document gets to IESG Evaluation).  As
it stands now (I haven't found rfc5566bis or rfc5640bis), and unless
there's explicit interest in starting work soon on *bis, it seem like
Obsoleting is the right answer.


Alvaro.



> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Retana 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.
>