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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 20 August 2018 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 8AD82130DC6; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 qv5dlV68Y6YI; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510D412F295; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6034270E18DF; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:49:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrvtZF-4oKXN; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 374F570E18CD; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EAC5E3BA-AFF7-4187-96C3-72B82CF5DAE0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:48:39 -0400
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis.all@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A31E556D-D0F7-4C1D-AB2F-A48EF628DADE@sobco.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>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1vlsdyzBc1i-hpNAlbQWpZN3o_8>
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 18:49:06 -0000

looks good to me - thanks

Scott


> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>