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

Hi Dino, 

I think that Alvaro has a valid point about rfc8113bis to be cited as normative. 

This is easy to fix, IMO. Thanks.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : lisp [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dino Farinacci
> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 19:39
> À : Alvaro Retana
> Cc : lisp-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org;
> lisp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-
> rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Alvaro, I don’t know what you want to be satisified with the text. And rather
> than go 20 questions, with weeks of turn-around time, can you offer text
> please?
> 
> Dino
> 
> > On Sep 24, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci (farinacci@gmail.com)
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >> Done.
> > 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
> 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.
> > 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
> rfc8113
> >> > (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
> 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.
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Alvaro.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp