Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

[Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Thanks for the help. I was suggesting to change the references from
6830/6833 to 6830bis/6833bis, not to speed it up.

If it is doable to wait for the bis documents and then change the
references to the bis versions then I´m all for it.

Albert

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:01 AM BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> If we want to get lisp-intro done now, we should leave the reference to RFC6830. If change to the bis, we need to wait until they are published as they also would be listed normatively.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:14 PM
> To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] list <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
>
> > I don’t see lisp-sec as essential to implementing lisp-intro. I don’t know why it was listed as normative? To me, it is providing additional information.
>
> I agree LISP-SEC is additional information for an introductory document. You bring up a good point.
>
> > If the working group agrees, I can check with the RFC-Editor if can move lisp-security to informative. I think the change will only need author and AD approval. Does anyone have any concerns? Or is lisp-security “almost done” and should continue to wait?
>
> I agree with your proposal. But have another question. If we update the lisp-intro to move this reference to Informative, do you at the same time change all occurences of 6830/6833 to the bis document equivalents or do you want to push lisp-intro through?
>
> I would say go for the latter since the information in 6830/6833 has not changed when shuffling sections around into 6830bis/6833bis. So Albert, the information in RFC6830 is not obsoleted but the document may be.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dino