Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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>.
>>
>> 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/
>
> Ciao
>
> L.
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>> Major issues: No technical issues, but see summary.
>>
>> Minor issues: None
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments: None
>>
>>
>