Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Mon, 20 August 2018 19:32 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 E98C812F1A5 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] 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 GxdSdMd5TIDZ for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92b.google.com (mail-ua1-x92b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92b]) (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 D489E129619 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92b.google.com with SMTP id h1-v6so10417228uao.8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:40 -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=TMtTic6I1P+apNHeXUb1k9zCQpByC4n2MV0iJ6EQ8QU=; b=X9Um1Qyq5hk0qlSMRcs9rKzILMAaXE18+Lh6w3/MMuqGrYb2Ok0TjX5EVCmTNZr0Zm 9suVLbQqGhSORFKG5eQj9oglqR38SmQQ01n7R3ai/NOVSe5wecrVhmSM6+9Gx7MRpPHt xto4WXii+8VX7K8pu+Fw+yb/l4ZsXBp7JPeldoTfNxQwrHCr3NEjTgfDkE+WxEV30YWA fqcZb3qxBDAjkokDx/YMHZomDF6iGuNJg+JSE02WMXL3TCNtub6Tc3aW1UEQBax4FoW/ Q9b+sJkkd0Ni6/IHn2U6iW1fGTz6ZSIZHUbOEJpWNaY4DTPTwaXtweBd4CT9IIaC4S14 BQbQ==
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=TMtTic6I1P+apNHeXUb1k9zCQpByC4n2MV0iJ6EQ8QU=; b=XNpySUUcXp+LvEPy4lI07MO6M9tSbkAZ460gsxvNeHD2l/guNmJgKxCNgUN57jxYrZ p+99HkAVP+fi8UGSrcmsUsbWY61ijrzP4JqGXtLmsCmqWFbo8Y8i4bCWWrhiWyooLQzq e6H7hBcL40HeQs0tsFPNaq1KPX+mwPyn21HosyyxkhY7h0K2uYV5Mkv8Ovf6+4cDCZM3 113HySxdiTdKvCnOS0F/04pAK98a0HqoxXUE4tRnEjszy/1Y/GCwnbB2idrCwa3VuQL7 fxPacOXnlmhPlUH7IymkY2SdmFpOgZJT1Yc8B3Xs9+sq4WtLD9cN5ccU/vbLpZdd/vQN Od5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHTGaxADp40NM/3D5wDEGJdwVIR4XeWSxAdyAiOj6HKHzHGkFgt XaT4ie3WDpJgdF+Dw4M1rHOjq2gR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwOp7QC9R9rahi/iS0NHpjKl1oAVBTsLkHyHmCNHGnBLgWdEFKrhGx/JS42lGhrPGnM2/J9Jw==
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2687:: with SMTP id t7-v6mr31334740uao.195.1534793558860; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.0.236] ([45.73.155.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d71-v6sm2898228vka.47.2018.08.20.12.32.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:32:38 -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: <b96b5656-cbcf-5a5e-26a7-811e248f8ae6@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:32:37 -0400
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4343C99-F070-42B6-9A10-D4ED4AC5D6D1@gmail.com>
References: <6515577E-31A8-45DC-90DA-59C43817EAB7@sobco.com> <D7DCB6AE-D9AA-48E9-8D5C-FA7E7169E155@gmail.com> <600E5518-F884-42DA-80F2-4CF650C6BA60@sobco.com> <F5DF64DA-7974-456A-AC57-A25D160F253A@gmail.com> <4BAEBA48-2435-4B26-9A45-493A259E6250@sobco.com> <75299534-B274-40F4-AACB-F72105B2E248@gmail.com> <FE16C3DB-4B94-4B15-A377-0137F2A3F044@sobco.com> <EAC5E3BA-AFF7-4187-96C3-72B82CF5DAE0@gmail.com> <b96b5656-cbcf-5a5e-26a7-811e248f8ae6@cisco.com>
To: Fabio Maino <fmaino=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/UPBduBOu8BGDucz0z39YJ0T-tT4>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:32:43 -0000

Will fix. Thanks for the catch Fabio.

Dino

> On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Fabio Maino <fmaino=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Looks good Dino. 
> 
> Noted one nit in section 18, not worth spinning a new version IMO: 
> 
> "The is 1 remaining bit" -> "The 1 remaining bit"
> 
> Fabio
> 
> 
> On 8/20/18 11:42 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> WG, here is a diff with changes to reflect Scott’s comment. I wanted the list of implementator to-be-aware changes to get working group quick review.
>> 
>> I’m about to add a “Changes since RFC 6833” section to RFC 6833bis as well.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dino
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> a specific section only dealing with the changes since the RFC is best
>>> 
>>> there is too much noise in the per iteration log (which as you already note should be removed)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:57 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Note we do have a Document Change Log in Appendix B detailing the changes put in each version starting with RFC6830. Would that suffice? Or you still think a specific section is required?
>>>> 
>>>> Dino
>>>> 
>>>> <PastedGraphic-9.png>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> it would be best to have a section called “changes since RFC 6830” so there is no ambiguity that the section covers the changes
>>>>> 
>>>>> it would be fine to have that section just say “See  “Implementation Considerations.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Dino
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There were little changes that an implementor would need to know about for the data-plane. But there were for the control-plane (i.e. RFC6833bis). But in either case, we’ll add a section in each bis document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks - even if the section says “nothing to worry about” it will be useful
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll title it “Implementation Considerations” and place it between 17 and 18?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 14. Multicast Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
>>>>>> 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
>>>>>> 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
>>>>>> 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
>>>>>> 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are you going to be reviewer for 6833bis as well?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> not assigned that yet but I will take a look
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will try to get the sections done in the next day or so. I’m at the 3GPP meetings this week.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 6:14 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I was just assigned to do a ops-dir review of  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> this is not the review - that will come soon
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> but since this is a “bis” document that is to replace an existing RFC it needs to have a 
>>>>>>>>> “changes since RFC 6830” section so that implementors of the earlier RFC will be able to tell
>>>>>>>>> what they need to change to bring their code up to date without having to compare the 
>>>>>>>>> RFCs line by line (and likely miss something)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> 
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp