Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Mon, 24 September 2018 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA91130DD2; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.738
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pd7e_Lg9FlcL; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97EF41252B7; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m23-v6so2678934otf.0; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qf61zTMvV9eeoWLrAPhW7w3kvxAyXqzmXUdAAMyre5g=; b=hA4Roc9YTZzjn7ney/hukoAqWtfO41k/lS9/MFigzpyBFWwHUsl/HqIJ9MDpLyb7E4 SsXK/sQavw6khlVQUnsKXCoCutNhZTDuiW8//4FVulTjaBw2q4xWLF2ZUFF0tx1R6Bgl Xa/kbUrwkA7mx5TPFYQDqQdHvf+NmbDp1H3JGCJel+9CxZEDbDZl8aiO05hxzWkljKbq SHpkIRhn2Ld5ladPBHsj+BU3lf5F9TDMI315G38yJ+Rav4gE7p+2Bv4R2XhWQuRoQbO+ gOB5BZdz3MDybMa72cVAtyGrumFv08tq8V6yE83f+MzEk2/lYTHkX7tZCI9JJnfrVIT+ d6VA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qf61zTMvV9eeoWLrAPhW7w3kvxAyXqzmXUdAAMyre5g=; b=LViDxVrRenqpoDK2FVtqATYp56160dQEbxwynEJS/MwgDLmppiygGngq6y/ZZv9yZ9 t2zOGSerO/WZlbfvZ3F6Kk+6hCdnIHSr2W80h3SfHdKDbyeE77hIPIH6Gl/VccsvUpHZ dYZ5IOoyyVDniwrAPGQ8wwbuXDbI70iZ9Nypvbqp2rGnvOLXcKYTvIjNE9ok4kYMO7gd b55M16QrNDD+NETiGYN0NDPz87JYLy3JEoxQMWpLnWG4s84NTg3JHXLJ4lhsrBOtDhlu WjU4N86EfcLrvs9xuk9lJ0Qo+G3ZNicAKnnJDfTwdCBWXfPALV0f8XbkjiF3yzjv/Fga /mcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BuPFcP9my+FE0n5yIrjKDVsHqaLW/vxOzk1DI47E3TKTAQPUCM ZuY66ZXyTNqIGm/1qvP5zrCFkU+YkRfxbNRbltQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60wpWMPzBCy0cjg9jLl+1qomWo6FX7OZdrvUS0hjSFHtN88Rqb+/yXsyK8Ek6Yq8RmPIwRKSGqGoyFFTpIKkuw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:ac5:: with SMTP id 63-v6mr7431611otq.16.1537803210809; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:33:30 +0000
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (506)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:33:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,, Luigi Iannone <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d67e805769fb605"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:33:34 -0000

On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci (


I’m back to this document…after the Defer...


> (3) Even though draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis is tagged as Obsoleting
rfc6830, I
> think that, because of how the contents of that RFC were distributed, this

> document should also be tagged as Obsoleting rfc6830.


The text is there, but the tag in the header is missing ("Obsoletes: 6833
(if approved)”).

> (4) The LISP Packet Types registry was set up in rfc8113. This document
> that IANA "refers to this document as well as [RFC8113] as references"
> and it seems to try to change the registration (or the text is
incomplete) in
> (§5.1): "Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
> procedures in [RFC8126]." Which procedure? s/Not Assigned/Unassigned (§6
> rfc8126)

The early values are already registered with IANA. This document is asking
to register the new ones which include type 15. And the values *within*
type 15 are documented in RFC8113.

The only place where I see type 15 referenced is in §5.1.  If that section
is "asking to register the new ones which include type 15”, then these are
instructions to IANA.

Regardless, a pointer from §11.2 to §5.1 won’t hurt the document.

> (5) Because of the point above, this draft should (at least) Update
> (see also below).

Don’t follow.

This document asks that the LISP Packet Type registry point also to this
registry.  That is a change to the registry, which was defined in rfc8113
(which is the only current reference).  Updating the registry this way
should be signaled with an update to rfc8113 in this document.

> (6) This document says that "Protocol designers experimenting with new
> formats SHOULD use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type". I think this
> statement makes rfc8113 a Normative reference -- which results in a
> Suggestion: given that this document already updates the registry set up
> rfc8113, and recommends the use of the Shared Extension Message, it may
be a
> good idea to simply adopt the contents of that document here (grand total
of 6
> pages) and declare it Obsolete.

I’m yielding to the lisp-chairs and Deborah for this one.

I see that there’s a WG adoption call for rfc8113bis.  That’s fine with me
— but I still think that the reference should be normative.