Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Mon, 20 August 2018 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81460130E30; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I3HubF4BPfJl; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF81C130DD8; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w187-v6so2110118vkw.0; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FDfQ17iHR7WUggDtCoxLXPbpgSZuyx+zrYn4TiganLM=; b=M7zohtG3E5qzabbQWxSVOe1RxWAe4uY1OR39do0DEafe7Ubk03mpBq+wEpPOVWE9PQ culsPqdu41beuf5XUYmQuxjyFOLF145pR2ykkLuy1IchOiU5FEQ5ttJ4Y/7yaH5OQnho 5hCs2Anlwrd2C96FE3qjbyuGv/poy3mILvpQmDlDNSAulbNGxUEKWY1vAH4IrVvoCt+Y O7MXmpLslvgxzRJeken7zbqNOvbugRfgWH9DJcgRPHS2AbgfaRxOII6UobJaEzkY6475 0/DP92Scgxp7uc7JDmiyh1r/v7QuD/SRigsST1a7JRV+UH5MJHHm2suhjcGbCLBN/eU1 JOFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FDfQ17iHR7WUggDtCoxLXPbpgSZuyx+zrYn4TiganLM=; b=hGCanrGENYrYmmdu9fWpdyyrYh5BynV5XcRQvLA/BPv8KveCuaDqnBEXVdfsSFYkYK 530SrYAuzMZG9zbjCH4D1Aj1XGt7lo4dgY3djMSCme9Xw6QiMznjSPIHo585mxrGMnHh CS+06/16lrcreChUKHaefNxuCDLbGncwgSyHqD0dpvuiD/gNMmrL2PcJfRP8U0iHbQx/ C8/j9gC7p2IhzdlWeBrp8givPIj748fK3TRVd7RV/w9AYWFN5CEnxfoHaWFmHPk/LWyb ZDMrBWthQEZi3Boq+ogOwIvUoaLEmR4WVV+EXGUK3ygVpV9udKEd/qo5YZrpLXNxOTMm ctyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFDfg2sqp8jHum6LewRaxCf2RlHzwQYmtEUI7YezhxMreBV2/UR vAa74o1TJf6jzAyayfPLr1M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxNsH+9Thj9KtBELyCJjGu3UWWlnselN4ZYj/3ViJHwY6MrB6/fdqtv2Q96UDmaMCcl1dmtlA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2bd8:: with SMTP id r207-v6mr32083900vkr.104.1534794175861; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.0.236] ([45.73.155.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b15-v6sm2855665uak.40.2018.08.20.12.42.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E88630B-404F-4E0D-8CE5-5DD602A59D25@sobco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:42:54 -0400
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis.all@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F27055C-152D-432B-B372-B79739561D92@gmail.com>
References: <6515577E-31A8-45DC-90DA-59C43817EAB7@sobco.com> <D7DCB6AE-D9AA-48E9-8D5C-FA7E7169E155@gmail.com> <600E5518-F884-42DA-80F2-4CF650C6BA60@sobco.com> <F5DF64DA-7974-456A-AC57-A25D160F253A@gmail.com> <4BAEBA48-2435-4B26-9A45-493A259E6250@sobco.com> <75299534-B274-40F4-AACB-F72105B2E248@gmail.com> <FE16C3DB-4B94-4B15-A377-0137F2A3F044@sobco.com> <EAC5E3BA-AFF7-4187-96C3-72B82CF5DAE0@gmail.com> <9BE375D7-50E1-4FF1-B59C-93C203CFBDD0@gmail.com> <9E88630B-404F-4E0D-8CE5-5DD602A59D25@sobco.com>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/-UC6e3JTWSM94R7tzN4m-GPsE-c>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:42:58 -0000

I’ll post both in a few days giving WG some time.

Dino

> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> looks just right 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> And here is the diff for the same type of changes for 6833bis.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dino
>> 
>> <rfcdiff-rfc6833bis.html>
>> 
>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>> WG, here is a diff with changes to reflect Scott’s comment. I wanted the list of implementator to-be-aware changes to get working group quick review.
>>> 
>>> I’m about to add a “Changes since RFC 6833” section to RFC 6833bis as well.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>> <rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html>
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> a specific section only dealing with the changes since the RFC is best
>>>> 
>>>> there is too much noise in the per iteration log (which as you already note should be removed)
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:57 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note we do have a Document Change Log in Appendix B detailing the changes put in each version starting with RFC6830. Would that suffice? Or you still think a specific section is required?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dino
>>>>> 
>>>>> <PastedGraphic-9.png>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> it would be best to have a section called “changes since RFC 6830” so there is no ambiguity that the section covers the changes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> it would be fine to have that section just say “See  “Implementation Considerations.”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Dino
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There were little changes that an implementor would need to know about for the data-plane. But there were for the control-plane (i.e. RFC6833bis). But in either case, we’ll add a section in each bis document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> thanks - even if the section says “nothing to worry about” it will be useful
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I’ll title it “Implementation Considerations” and place it between 17 and 18?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 14. Multicast Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
>>>>>>> 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
>>>>>>> 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
>>>>>>> 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
>>>>>>> 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Are you going to be reviewer for 6833bis as well?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> not assigned that yet but I will take a look
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will try to get the sections done in the next day or so. I’m at the 3GPP meetings this week.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 6:14 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I was just assigned to do a ops-dir review of  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> this is not the review - that will come soon
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> but since this is a “bis” document that is to replace an existing RFC it needs to have a 
>>>>>>>>>> “changes since RFC 6830” section so that implementors of the earlier RFC will be able to tell
>>>>>>>>>> what they need to change to bring their code up to date without having to compare the 
>>>>>>>>>> RFCs line by line (and likely miss something)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>