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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>