Re: [lisp] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 27 September 2018 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 D8A1F130E9E; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=cooperw.in header.b=qXS6n3di; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ruVCc2Qh
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 E8ZFIsEz_YkY; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80C4B130E90; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2299121B88; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:28:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:28:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=QKUeWeRtfRO+iiaxiaFiOWhFM+TzTOqy2T5AFOq6JMY=; b=qXS6n3di KGv/WNQz/VFoDKDg7H5BRUjrdRDIZtZjM5DUBiMhSwq6Zvqrep/XX9AuqHfaWZpp Dl0avloM7ZBdQBpyfGKbZKcdB+VopHPHLU1PoQlJek4g6EelMM9DUikIsjd+nWSq pjfVfaipwGQVXj5mz7X29aBaNIBkfNfx6dxA8EcLakn223jV923Sl3BNn1Uj+gI6 f6jpZ7wsEVn/v5w1SISAagl8NG3e7gSCQA019uyNG6W211mBdbQKURiA7rWkpVwF EJ1y3bEzwC7xK3RwJvGlSdKfhfTa6bVZBKx2NJrrNOavJZtAthZ2qvd7XpEGVBvt jMC2VuskIuJ+Sg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=QKUeWeRtfRO+iiaxiaFiOWhFM+TzT Oqy2T5AFOq6JMY=; b=ruVCc2QhxzHILn6+I7PYXzjWCQl0GiQs1uvps7XBKlbht 7khQIVzoFfN3IxRvuMTEJ6s8TSvaWCNUog8Wyf638fwiWNuSfXDLa3H2MmiPTOXX meCwkvKgrsiO2yguUOCM11HYf3RW3cIHiwLMTlhAU0sbfmXqPkVLwYWerI9s9wu1 pRZe/tHITzZ3t6uvo4Kj4lDrm3GAfdWcoqtZ4LpcvHeJH6kO1b18mRQXl+TQZvfP z/ymQfiCUWPt3XRe2aZwmn0ys8knXvgz4CssZWDMmK7LUsuVdZZiTaCiYJ3ixStp iOCPzp8U/Iv50L+nLko3nYPY1hJ5nkxZL5RAdNU4g==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-tqsW9hcbCe2g_devKeWilInLbnwAQM7L4u8rk_fgi23MPdAxyCs6A> <xmx:-tqsW3-5nYg-to9E3pKoD5FnaUNjsQICv9SudIZt15JsmwAzhdZZJQ> <xmx:-tqsW6O0UWjWWmej_W-Y-MBTeSmzRaobeT5IJkyr4OEn1E1y7QbIuw> <xmx:-tqsWzBmQkzajV6ms_pH_cEDeAFLQWq65f7LZHSrJvAUdy_-DCflUg> <xmx:-tqsW2Pu_gFyNlivVgY_DEyPKMZTSPOECyzOwxoqgVyQ5EJOvCjPvA> <xmx:-9qsW0lIyf9CBS9KsKlg6LsPoHsqqrbhWB4e0nvF8jmZFTZlW88gzQ>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-tqsWx0DDPuF6oxooG4RB6G-L5Oywy9deA6LOPizKFCJarM3qiTYLA>
Received: from [10.71.5.33] (unknown [8.25.222.2]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 03F1CE47C2; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <59D29F5A-3773-4E96-9369-3D7E624BBEBF@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C49CA32D-F645-4972-A13C-454B7DB480E2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:28:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <03c0a914-4d3d-e83e-204c-e9ae30bdf2f4@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <153510829645.23054.14135893273393348518@ietfa.amsl.com> <0FB6579C-8C87-4BB0-91ED-B53881F54CC2@gigix.net> <03c0a914-4d3d-e83e-204c-e9ae30bdf2f4@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/D3DmMYRxFR-DiwYFV-aep9Z74Pw>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:28:33 -0000

Stewart, thanks for your review. I have entered a DISCUSS ballot on this point.

Alissa

> On Aug 27, 2018, at 2:55 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Clearly I think it makes better sense to sequence the drafts in dependency order so that everything lines up.
> 
> However, ultimately that is a decision to be made by the Chair and responsible AD.
> 
> Stewart
> 
> On 27/08/2018 08:48, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>> Hi Steward,
>> 
>> see inline….
>> 
>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 12:58, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
>>> Review result: Ready
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
>>> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
>>> Review Date: 2018-08-24
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-06
>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> 
>>> This is a well written draft, and I assume that everyone in the WG is happy
>>> that the reduction in size of the Nonce/Map-Version field will not be a problem
>>> in operational networks.
>>> 
>>> However, I do have a question of why this is being published now on the
>>> Standards Track with a normative reference to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis.
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis is only a few weeks old. It will take its time to get
>>> through the IETF process and of course technically may change. If 
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-gpe is approved by the IESG  it will simply sit on the RFC
>>> Editor's queue until draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis gets through the system, and even
>>> then if there is a change to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis, then draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
>>> may need to be pulled all the way back to the WG depending on the nature of the
>>> change.
>>> 
>>> Maybe the plan is that ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis will only take a short while to
>>> finish because I see that other bis drafts will also stall on it. If not I
>>> would have thought that a better approach would be to make this experimental
>>> and point to RFC6834. Then, when RFC6834bis is published to make this draft a
>>> PS pointing to it.
>> 
>> These are we small documents. I am not sure this would really be necessary. 
>> We do not expect big changes in any bis document, since they are just the PS version of deployed technology. 
>> So the risk to have the gee document come back to the WG to do any change is quite inexistent.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Whatever the conclusion this matter will need to be clearly written up in the
>>> Shepherd's report.
>> 
>> I am the shepherd of the document and I duly pointed out this fact in my writeup, check point 14 of:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/>
>> 
>> Ciao
>> 
>> L.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Major issues: No technical issues, but see summary.
>>> 
>>> Minor issues: None
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments: None
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art