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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 25 September 2018 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 32C9613114A; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4yy3uVFP6dg7; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2368013125B; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42KFwC5JFCz1y6T; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.58]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42KFwC4QwzzDq7l; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:22:35 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUVC2DlTrX+vSS8kaXfn/Jv3V2WqUAuanQ
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:22:34 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE658F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <153661582508.16057.11407647013027747215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C9397F28-CC26-4CC6-8D46-23839E2F3A2F@gmail.com> <CAMMESsw=DaJFw1DoQeZR8NsB46pe5RPo1SVW=FUetYg90y7-dg@mail.gmail.com> <881C546E-62A6-4C92-8AE7-CA166A554AD3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <881C546E-62A6-4C92-8AE7-CA166A554AD3@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/V7G-fVOrBfEVEu_p-5UbQvJiN7g>
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, 25 Sep 2018 09:22:39 -0000

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