Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

Hi Dino, 

OLD: 

   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
   procedures in [RFC8126].

NEW:

   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards
   Action [RFC8113].

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
> 
> What does fixing in (1) mean?
> 
> Dino
> 
> > On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by the WG.
> You may refer, for example, to the message from Deborah which clarifies this
> point: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg07886.html. One
> of the outcomes of that discussion is to add an "updates" header to 8113bis.
> >
> > FWIW, one of the issues that led to that conclusion was whether to cite
> rfc8113bis as normative in 6833bis (the approach I initially supported) and
> agreed by Dino (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/lisp/current/msg07882.html). Deborah convinced me that citing
> 8113bis will lead to circular dependency. Which is a fair argument.
> >
> > The "updates" tag was justified as follows:
> >
> > (1)
> >
> > RFC6833bis includes the following:
> >
> >   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
> >   procedures in [RFC8126].
> >
> > That text is updated by RFC8113bis to be aligned with 8113:
> >
> >   Values can be assigned via Standards Action
> >
> > (2)
> >
> > RFC8113bis extends the type field to grab more bits/values when the
> available types are exhausted. This is captured in 8113bis:
> >
> >   The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action.
> >   This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the
> >   exhaustion of the LISP Packet types.
> >
> > Dino: If (1) is fixed directly in RFC6833bis, then I'm fine to remove the
> "updates" header because (2) can be also seen as an extension.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
> >> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
> >> À : Joel M. Halpern
> >> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-art@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
> >> rfc8113bis.all@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-
> 01
> >>
> >> Mohmad to comment.
> >>
> >> Dino
> >>
> >>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That is the other fix he offered.  Just remove the updates tag.
> >>> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
> >>> Yours,
> >>> Joel
> >>>
> >>> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> >>>> 8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have
> >> more types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can
> be
> >> interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem.
> >>>> 8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there can
> be
> >> another format to have more types.
> >>>> Dino
> >>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yours,
> >>>>> Joel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP
> specs
> >>>>>>> to PS.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis
> is
> >>>>>>> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that
> needed
> >>>>>>> to move to PS along with everything else.  It seemed (and is) simpler
> >> to
> >>>>>>> do it separately rather than to further modify 6830bis / 6933bis.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for why it updates 6833bis, that is because one of the cahnges in
> >>>>>>> moving the set to PS was to improve the split as to which information
> >>>>>>> belonged in which document.
> >>>>>> OK, but I still don't find it logical The text doesn't explain which
> >> part of
> >>>>>> 6833bis is impacted, and normally these days we require such an
> >> explanation.
> >>>>>> And if there is an impact, you're missing the opportunity of fixing
> the
> >> error
> >>>>>> or gap in 6833bis, so the reader of 6833bis will be none the wiser
> >> unless
> >>>>>> you insert a reference to 8113bis.
> >>>>>> On the other hand, if there is no error or gap, you don't need
> >> "Updates:"
> >>>>>> at all. (Unfortunately, we don't have an "Extends:" header.)
> >>>>>>   Brian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yours,
> >>>>>>> Joel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12/18/18 9:25 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> >>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> >>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> >>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> >>>>>>>> like any other last call comments.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt
> >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> >>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-12-19
> >>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27
> >>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues
> >>>>>>>> --------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Comments:
> >>>>>>>> ---------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the standards
> >> track.
> >>>>>>>> Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Minor issues:
> >>>>>>>> -------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text doesn't
> >>>>>>>> explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to RFC8113, which
> >>>>>>>> explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why doesn't
> >>>>>>>> this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume that
> >>>>>>>> is an error.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types registry
> >>>>>>>> moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it belongs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG review,
> >> anything
> >>>>>>>> in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is that
> >> rfc8113bis
> >>>>>>>> extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates".
> >>>>>>>> If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read 8113bis,
> >>>>>>>> there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> lisp mailing list
> >>>>> lisp@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >