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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 11 September 2018 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.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 758F8128766; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 WaLWfGu-vAep; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F0A1277BB; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d4-v6so12490998pfn.0; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nHPDNyg0QYJhagiwriVhR9WfR6Er7zJqXOuKKGk6Tz8=; b=uNLgZ9TXyDyG1mMfehSykGB+oxYjJJoWNZm/N+JqNQnltE2NzKgSo+EOiylj5svjdS dqabIR1sVWV56OnmDXsl7An06coXSHd8Hi1noEWyTjoAm9TPaA/98TJkaKi1EPuGfo8H 2HrOy3H2H9xQ2Y/BGDFLaRbha6DpV8Fitcn6PEcceR5QswFK5xjUrElwAL6W8ZTQNOSR xsTYoMy+d66XUipfkQMjH7s729PLSIcDlaS7iEqN7IFPtA6FfdGNWwmbvBBIqQ5hRMVn H2FEmx3sL57iRcoazfwqbNJ2JoObL9AdrOgZZ8Lkf5Jvxqb4Wh+Fr82xXANl1Yv/cFxP 4OiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nHPDNyg0QYJhagiwriVhR9WfR6Er7zJqXOuKKGk6Tz8=; b=AzFihMEj1GxFBUBYiVRlxECQB/LsTKfDo2+BOMlGTeBk9xvcSY6WU6ecdEocXyi/0S GSP8HsL4rAZ9lf1K7E2HzDmPioLatvDsYsrYeNcxaWmfZukw19M1ioUgiMnLs4tG5dxC 4dibWmf7VVReECEClE+ID02L0Q4LmYYh76NVIbvPNTuWkee0xM7ID54XbP+1IV4qo2vf kI9M3g6GrR/a0Xs9Na0Mq5Mv//AkYZ2eVhSwaM9f3sGayMCIxep7eyt/XtK0xCke7CSy 0/EVVHKQK2y9yu8IMTsbpZZD0hHz89y6S6jsCAuN92QqOkVdtHiRTzylKzPsZ3zQHgAC VUPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51B2Xzn5XYmW8NYtIgXR5MirL29q5VgmeUInbObQOkSkONO6RMGU u6hnWAcUmzwjivD8VxePNGQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYX3bcCB5jj69TaY05BzsBcXE60ocWWDKGrX/kFaglpMggAjqI9eTcFUJi2S3l5CmvLbtA+kA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e40d:: with SMTP id a13-v6mr29221857pgi.289.1536682984339; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.79.252] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q25-v6sm30190760pfk.96.2018.09.11.09.23.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <153661582508.16057.11407647013027747215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:23:02 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C9397F28-CC26-4CC6-8D46-23839E2F3A2F@gmail.com>
References: <153661582508.16057.11407647013027747215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/SmCBm08emYmCWr5JVIykXrfbS0U>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:23:06 -0000

> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/

Thanks for your comments Alvaro. See my responses below.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There are several issues in §5.1 (LISP Control Packet Type Allocations) that
> need to be fixed.  I don't think any of them raise up to a DISCUSS, but I would
> like to see them resolved before publication.
> 
> §5.1 "defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes for IANA the LISP
> Type codes assigned by this document".
> 
> (1) Instructions (or anything directed) to IANA should be in the IANA
> Considerations section.  There isn't even a pointer to this section later on
> for IANA to look at it.

These are not instructions. The instructions are in the IANA Considerations section. And IANA already knows what to do and already have done so. So there is no confusion with them.

> (2) The text seems to imply ("Message type definitions are") that the types are
> defined here (or at least in rfc6833, which this document Obsoletes), but they
> are defined in rfc6830, rfc8111 and rfc8113.  Please properly identify the
> source (only the rfc8113 line has a reference).

It means exactly what it says. Only type 15 extensions are defined in 8113. I have added text that this document, RFC6833bis does obsolete both 6830 and 6833.

> (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.

Done.

> (4) The LISP Packet Types registry was set up in rfc8113.  This document asks
> that IANA "refers to this document as well as [RFC8113] as references" (§11.2),
> 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 in
> 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.

> (5) Because of the point above, this draft should (at least) Update rfc8113
> (see also below).

Don’t follow.

> (6) This document says that "Protocol designers experimenting with new message
> formats SHOULD use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type".  I think this
> statement makes rfc8113 a Normative reference -- which results in a DownRef. 
> Suggestion: given that this document already updates the registry set up in
> 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.

> (7) Type 7 is missing.

Fixed.

Thanks again,
Dino