Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

_IF_  we go for references update in the Intro document, we should proof read the whole document because some things have been moved around.
For instance: lisp-intro states SMR is defined in 6830, we cannot replace it with 6830bis, because now it is defined in 6833bis.

Ciao

L.



> On 12 Sep 2018, at 02:27, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I just went and looked again at draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis and draft-ietf-lisp-introduction.
> 
> I do not see a circularity problem.
> 
> 6833bis says, as you quote, that "draft-ietf-lisp-introduction describes the LISP archtiecture."
> And draft-ietf-lisp-introduction says "this document introduces the Locator/ID Separation Protocol ... architecture".
> (Yes, I elided the reference to 6830, because it is essentially meaninglss in that sentence. It is, the protocol definition.)
> Seems quite consistent.
> 
> I do not see any need to change what is the the bis draft in this regard.
> 
> In a perfect world, the introduction draft (in the rfc editor queue) would point to 6830bis and 6833 bis.
> If the ADs agree that is appropriate, they can direct the RFC Editor to make thaqt change.  I do not consider this to be substantive, as the protocol behavior is not different between the documents (unlike the ongoing controversy about ICE.)  I do not consider such a change necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/11/18 12:29 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>> On September 11, 2018 at 9:50:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>> Hi!
>>> Any change to lisp-intro should be done by discussion with the RFC
>>> Editor, as it is in the RFC Editor queue (pending reference completion).
>>> If the working group considers it acceptable, we could easily ask them
>>> to change the references to 6830 and 6833 to the bis documents (after
>>> all, it is alreay blocked by documents which depend upon those.)
>> The reference would still be circular: rfc6830bis would point at lisp-introduction for architecture details, and that would point back here.
>> If lisp-introduction was just that (an introduction) and the details were in rfc6830 to start with…. Maybe the easy fix is to just not point to lisp-introduction from rfc6830bis, because the details should be here (and rfc6833bis) already.
>> s/Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture.//
>> Alvaro.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 9/10/18 11:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> > If you guys have source for the intro doc, I could point it to bis
>>> > documents?
>>> >
>>> > Dino
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Begin forwarded message:
>>> >
>>> >> *Resent-From:* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>> >> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>> >> *Date:* September 10, 2018 at 2:22:21 PM PDT
>>> >> *Resent-To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>>> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> >> *To:* "The IESG" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>> >> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Luigi Iannone
>>> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> >> *Subject:* *Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
>>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)*
>>> >>
>>> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: 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-rfc6830bis/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> COMMENT:
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the work on this document!
>>> >>
>>> >> I have some relatively minor comments/nits:
>>> >>
>>> >> (1) §18: s/RFC8060/RFC8061
>>> >>
>>> >> (2) §1: "Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP
>>> >> architecture."  First of all, it would seem to me that the
>>> >> Architecture should
>>> >> be a Normative reference...but I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction says that it
>>> >> "is used
>>> >> for introductory purposes, more details can be found in RFC6830, the
>>> >> protocol
>>> >> specification."  This document obsoletes rfc6830...so it seems to me
>>> >> that there
>>> >> is a failed circular dependency.
>>> >>
>>> >> (3) References to rfc2119/rfc8174 and rfc8126 should be Normative.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp