Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised.

Dino

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino, 
> 
> OLD: 
> 
>   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>   procedures in [RFC8126].
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards
>   Action [RFC8113].
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>> 
>> What does fixing in (1) mean?
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by the WG.
>> You may refer, for example, to the message from Deborah which clarifies this
>> point: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg07886.html. One
>> of the outcomes of that discussion is to add an "updates" header to 8113bis.
>>> 
>>> FWIW, one of the issues that led to that conclusion was whether to cite
>> rfc8113bis as normative in 6833bis (the approach I initially supported) and
>> agreed by Dino (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
>> archive/web/lisp/current/msg07882.html). Deborah convinced me that citing
>> 8113bis will lead to circular dependency. Which is a fair argument.
>>> 
>>> The "updates" tag was justified as follows:
>>> 
>>> (1)
>>> 
>>> RFC6833bis includes the following:
>>> 
>>>  Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>  procedures in [RFC8126].
>>> 
>>> That text is updated by RFC8113bis to be aligned with 8113:
>>> 
>>>  Values can be assigned via Standards Action
>>> 
>>> (2)
>>> 
>>> RFC8113bis extends the type field to grab more bits/values when the
>> available types are exhausted. This is captured in 8113bis:
>>> 
>>>  The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action.
>>>  This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the
>>>  exhaustion of the LISP Packet types.
>>> 
>>> Dino: If (1) is fixed directly in RFC6833bis, then I'm fine to remove the
>> "updates" header because (2) can be also seen as an extension.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
>>>> À : Joel M. Halpern
>>>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
>>>> rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
>>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-
>> 01
>>>> 
>>>> Mohmad to comment.
>>>> 
>>>> Dino
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is the other fix he offered.  Just remove the updates tag.
>>>>> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>>> 8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have
>>>> more types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can
>> be
>>>> interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem.
>>>>>> 8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there can
>> be
>>>> another format to have more types.
>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP
>> specs
>>>>>>>>> to PS.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis
>> is
>>>>>>>>> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that
>> needed
>>>>>>>>> to move to PS along with everything else.  It seemed (and is) simpler
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> do it separately rather than to further modify 6830bis / 6933bis.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As for why it updates 6833bis, that is because one of the cahnges in
>>>>>>>>> moving the set to PS was to improve the split as to which information
>>>>>>>>> belonged in which document.
>>>>>>>> OK, but I still don't find it logical The text doesn't explain which
>>>> part of
>>>>>>>> 6833bis is impacted, and normally these days we require such an
>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>> And if there is an impact, you're missing the opportunity of fixing
>> the
>>>> error
>>>>>>>> or gap in 6833bis, so the reader of 6833bis will be none the wiser
>>>> unless
>>>>>>>> you insert a reference to 8113bis.
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if there is no error or gap, you don't need
>>>> "Updates:"
>>>>>>>> at all. (Unfortunately, we don't have an "Extends:" header.)
>>>>>>>>  Brian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18 9:25 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-12-19
>>>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27
>>>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues
>>>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the standards
>>>> track.
>>>>>>>>>> Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to RFC8113, which
>>>>>>>>>> explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume that
>>>>>>>>>> is an error.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types registry
>>>>>>>>>> moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it belongs.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG review,
>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is that
>>>> rfc8113bis
>>>>>>>>>> extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates".
>>>>>>>>>> If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read 8113bis,
>>>>>>>>>> there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>> 
> 