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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 25 September 2018 20:43 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 B254E130E14; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cFtubL2XUliq; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (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 C965E130DD3; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id z14-v6so9947221qtn.2; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:42 -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=R123IKOrq5gtfzKlgBsPBRkO3uPUCZ0UpqWrv+ZKm4w=; b=aykbB+JrU+eEou0BM/kj0f8WmFtBt/hgdgfdLbIinLWpngS0+ShQdw8CrYZPqSRudm hDelqxIUhFRkOrGR7xNDP9o0+phbSkxAL+gqpdFW9oMV0bOnCUxNVe5YnyDojfHx7QGU TeA6Tapnsi4ak17xPJVeKRn+JSpFZZL9/nEfLKNsL9ABf7JBUmq+ilmBi3KvRBLjn8N0 HQ1YTA/GqGQ2kwFhAOaTkwYgWIfiTLmgA2G5vl4bpB2LlfxquB9XPGCDK8IDexKkUrwF bkWmsn1AfNblaK1N0D13Px99MpSzTuMFrxnAXxY+vvj6BDoVLLz5D91LriUzkFE/jElJ AIHA==
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=R123IKOrq5gtfzKlgBsPBRkO3uPUCZ0UpqWrv+ZKm4w=; b=rR0fwx1o1dGTBLZm5hpWfxETH5s+vzHNjCKGzcN+PMvw3Zdt0//43Ndf96+8siOCr9 RnYxVputUL8Tkr7GdgGf6MhpliBFNV5PMHMzrgkLyjmotp1ntorAI40TRzELM5ZXijDt lBzVXGOysOp3DPDFxDhzBCtYFekNec7Ts4uTh2/S3VTxUrDXF4SL7us18e7zo1QUUVIe WHKOYY/+cbBCRRpFj5lwdKGbidqD2GuiLvWGWsk7V+aue37QdKX0amhNce4P/H7KQ2sg SZLutrqK4WEVRwaK3xzbswa3UKw1PsbnWeYeefnkNZ2dqjROZSVczyYALmvbjVhMdu5L HyOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojEcSPDASCFQ/Y4XdBruk7uqiQXHOArz2q5tM3QBomsCKGpCpcZ BJANgPBpVUrQpGjPyOYUMN4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63r/LEnH8COmCDg8jqW7AA1/dQor95TLjtLA6eEJqmhcYNhyOAwwMr1heWGUXe1KY+fD1xlrw==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3848:: with SMTP id j66-v6mr2173257qte.218.1537908221903; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.96.40.161] ([205.157.120.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r73-v6sm1788318qke.78.2018.09.25.13.43.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:43:41 -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: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C888425666@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:41:37 -0700
Cc: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <74996139-0B0A-48B3-BD70-D3392C900A6A@gmail.com>
References: <153661582508.16057.11407647013027747215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C9397F28-CC26-4CC6-8D46-23839E2F3A2F@gmail.com> <CAMMESsw=DaJFw1DoQeZR8NsB46pe5RPo1SVW=FUetYg90y7-dg@mail.gmail.com> <881C546E-62A6-4C92-8AE7-CA166A554AD3@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE658F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <3553C470-8D15-4876-89FA-23A13830D27D@gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C888425666@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/05-gNADGdgP9hjS-g8LjRBgLv_M>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 20:43:58 -0000

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 <db3546@att.com>; 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 <iesg-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:03 PM
> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
> 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, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; 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:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dino Farinacci 
>>> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 19:39 À : Alvaro Retana Cc : 
>>> lisp-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org;
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> 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 <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci 
>>>> (farinacci@gmail.com)
>>> 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
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> 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=
>