Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

I’ll add the suggested text. Queued up for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16.

Thanks,
Dino

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 1:10 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> As Alvaro suggested, we could have incorporated all of RFC8113 here, and obsolete it. But it also is ok as a standalone. The group wanted to continue with it as a standalone. I think though we need to be clear on the relationships. I think Dino is right, RFC8113 is only (and should be only) informative here. There are some inter-relationships which we should clarify in this document and 8113bis. Also need to clarify a bit more what is to be done in the IANA section - I'm sure IANA will do ok - but it will make it clearer for others.
> 
> (Thanks Alvaro!!!)
> 
> Section 5.1
> =========
> OLD
> For completeness, this document references the LISP Shared Extension Message assigned by [RFC8113].
> NEW
> For completeness, the summary below includes the LISP Shared Extension Message assigned by [RFC8113].
> OLD
> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred value.
> NEW
> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to procedures in [RFC8113].
> (Deborah: 8113 set up the guidelines for the unassigned, the reader should refer to it. This will answer Alvaro's question on the procedures. Hint for Alvaro: unassigned is done via standards action.)
> OLD
> Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats SHOULD use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type and request a [RFC8113] sub-type assignment.
> NEW
> Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats are recommended to use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type [RFC8113].
> (Deborah: I think this sentence could be deleted, but if want to keep, I think it should not be "normative")
> 
> LISP Packet Type Codes
> ===================
> * For authors of RFC8113bis: need to add to 8113bis "updates 6833bis"
> Suggest:
> OLD
> It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet Type definitions and that it refers to this document as well as [RFC8113] as references.
> New
> It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet Type definitions and it is requested to replace the [RFC6830] registry message references with the RFC number assigned to this document.
> 
> OLD
> message type 5, was added to this document NEW message type 5,
> NEW
> message type 5, was added by this document NEW message type 5,
> 
> LISP ACT and Flag Fields
> ====================
> OLD
> Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830].  
> NEW
> Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830], IANA is requested to replace the [RFC6830] reference for this registry with the RFC number assigned to this document and the [RFC6830] Action values references with the RFC number assigned to this document.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:03 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
> 
> That is not the part I had a problem with. Consider it added.
> 
> Dino
> 
>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:22 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Dino,
>> 
>> I think that Alvaro has a valid point about rfc8113bis to be cited as normative. 
>> 
>> This is easy to fix, IMO. Thanks.  
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>> 
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : lisp [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Dino Farinacci 
>>> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 19:39 À : Alvaro Retana Cc : 
>>> [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-
>>> rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
>>> 
>>> Alvaro, I don’t know what you want to be satisified with the text. 
>>> And rather than go 20 questions, with weeks of turn-around time, can 
>>> you offer text please?
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 24, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci 
>>>> ([e-mail])
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi!
>>>> 
>>>> I’m back to this document…after the Defer...
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>>> (3) Even though draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis is tagged as Obsoleting
>>> rfc6830, I
>>>>>> think that, because of how the contents of that RFC were 
>>>>>> distributed,
>>> this
>>>>>> document should also be tagged as Obsoleting rfc6830.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Done.
>>>> The text is there, but the tag in the header is missing ("Obsoletes: 
>>>> 6833
>>> (if approved)”).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> (4) The LISP Packet Types registry was set up in rfc8113. This 
>>>>>> document
>>> asks
>>>>>> that IANA "refers to this document as well as [RFC8113] as references"
>>> (§11.2),
>>>>>> and it seems to try to change the registration (or the text is
>>> incomplete) in
>>>>>> (§5.1): "Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned 
>>>>>> according to procedures in [RFC8126]." Which procedure? s/Not 
>>>>>> Assigned/Unassigned (§6
>>> in
>>>>>> rfc8126)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The early values are already registered with IANA. This document is 
>>>>> asking
>>> to register the new ones which include type 15. And the values 
>>> *within* type
>>> 15 are documented in RFC8113.
>>>> The only place where I see type 15 referenced is in §5.1.  If that 
>>>> section
>>> is "asking to register the new ones which include type 15”, then 
>>> these are instructions to IANA.
>>>> 
>>>> Regardless, a pointer from §11.2 to §5.1 won’t hurt the document.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> (5) Because of the point above, this draft should (at least) 
>>>>>> Update
>>> rfc8113
>>>>>> (see also below).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don’t follow.
>>>> This document asks that the LISP Packet Type registry point also to 
>>>> this
>>> registry.  That is a change to the registry, which was defined in 
>>> rfc8113 (which is the only current reference).  Updating the registry 
>>> this way should be signaled with an update to rfc8113 in this document.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> (6) This document says that "Protocol designers experimenting with 
>>>>>> new
>>> message
>>>>>> formats SHOULD use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type". I 
>>>>>> think this statement makes rfc8113 a Normative reference -- which 
>>>>>> results in a
>>> DownRef.
>>>>>> Suggestion: given that this document already updates the registry 
>>>>>> set up
>>> in
>>>>>> rfc8113, and recommends the use of the Shared Extension Message, 
>>>>>> it may
>>> be a
>>>>>> good idea to simply adopt the contents of that document here 
>>>>>> (grand
>>> total of 6
>>>>>> pages) and declare it Obsolete.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m yielding to the lisp-chairs and Deborah for this one.
>>>> I see that there’s a WG adoption call for rfc8113bis.  That’s fine 
>>>> with me
>>> — but I still think that the reference should be normative.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> Alvaro.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai
>>> lman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7
>>> jYlxXD8w&m=oId2sNzdWAJ97tLbuZUKthdnDylZ3Imi2N7zYcMdkbc&s=5h76BQw8IAJV
>>> MN23ujgggCFwRXldKTwkRTWpxrH-_Mk&e=
>