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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

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

Dino

> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> looks just right 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Dino
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>