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

Luigi Iannone <> Tue, 11 September 2018 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A31130E01 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n_P9GsLO9uAM for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD98130E84 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f21-v6so1267022wmc.5 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vmHy4Q04gogQ0Z41oVTFZAm6wNWlHsFuYIsCMM4wNfk=; b=wuJ4AXzV2M/4gAFNMu9u8da19pg6WiQGDRDH6DZ4+2KYmVPR1UsNMv1hQ4F+UnaZFV aJGn2bjIr4u3iWPwceRjx/xkzZhO5bk30Jt1cMuBnoNNKmaOpAuw451yoqbTRwQNR9is 6uzuu1LUp5wnz6FYAlBs6bi8eda34fSnnrupbQ5k8jE9ctmHZK0xGJHDjggCMWHGjoyj rKV391pJi3xAPia6hztSicq/DfhdjwkboqunKBVDMqjsLexAoYeyBH1tgH0GjsyJcYyH C0m9FrxhWPbUSa9hR9WmLtIvv0P4M0ugqC+6Bz2ZS1DPBE8+laWMx+JueihY+depdqVz A6bA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vmHy4Q04gogQ0Z41oVTFZAm6wNWlHsFuYIsCMM4wNfk=; b=f+qZPAPklFHtyLuvBfcboKGYx7EHD95LTC10W9levmc0xJv5yYHCX5l5qTng4MFO2Y Puoq0jpy65djv0onupZYIUyGhFoLn7H5scWTaZCjbhcK/nv3aS2G0NoRSCzKNggB6WSw NCy2C4WqIlPPdUCCww4wFPCd7tIE2cfQdmy9vUvlQwSnVmrx+UOAuc8yhhTCht8inROf ba32EhR0YdWjpNCprTkSV8uctmMclifkvh3xc7fRD5B1ReZRVm/WS9ivoCTgKSJC4ILJ 9pDU7iDxuJ5OGnP0al5x3n58EHRFfcPXRVZQT+FksXalQFFNvriG0Yqq3jHCgZOr3G/j XtSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AONjeG+KBhu5joyaqVoYDhWJEsXQeutW1e5zx/0BU7ZXGBcIfn YwfEfUHtDOtLUdX5cM90Py/ZCw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYpuZjbT2dI2+QibRR/CjkHTk8TzjjlNlD6pJNNFFVN+G8p18oTNtpgGMQtgK0s8KzQlSeb+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3351:: with SMTP id z78-v6mr1648702wmz.23.1536676768848; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:b493:b5af:65cf:aebf? ([2001:660:330f:a4:b493:b5af:65cf:aebf]) by with ESMTPSA id l12-v6sm22327470wrv.29.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luigi Iannone <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B95A8066-3931-40E2-8FBF-C5E5F1640534"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:39:23 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, The IESG <>,,
To: Alvaro Retana <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:39:36 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

thanks for the reply. I think everything is clear. I need just one clarification:

> On 11 Sep 2018, at 16:05, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
> On September 11, 2018 at 5:15:38 AM, Luigi Iannone ( <>) wrote:
>>> There are several issues in §5.1 (LISP Control Packet Type Allocations) that
>>> need to be fixed.  I don't think any of them raise up to a DISCUSS, but I would
>>> like to see them resolved before publication.
>>> §5.1 "defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes for IANA the LISP
>>> Type codes assigned by this document".
>>> (1) Instructions (or anything directed) to IANA should be in the IANA
>>> Considerations section.  There isn't even a pointer to this section later on
>>> for IANA to look at it.
>> This can be easily fixed changing the first sentence to:
>>  This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes
>>            for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document (see details IANA considerations in Section 11).
>> What do you think?
> The main point is that is you want IANA to look at this text, then the best way is to put it in the IANA Considerations section.  They may be ok with a pointer the other way around: from Section 11 to this section (otherwise they might not notice).
>>> (2) The text seems to imply ("Message type definitions are") that the types are
>>> defined here (or at least in rfc6833, which this document Obsoletes), but they
>>> are defined in rfc6830, rfc8111 and rfc8113.  Please properly identify the
>>> source (only the rfc8113 line has a reference).
>> Would it be sufficient to add a sentence listing the messages that this documents re-defines and the original RFC which is obsoleted?
> I just want the text to be clear about what is defined here and what isn’t.  I think that references (like the one in there for rfc8113) would be enough.

I think I’ve got now you point. What we should do is not modify section 5.1, is modifying section 11.2.
We should update the text and following table:
	Name                 Number          Defined in
        ----                 ------          -----------
        LISP Map-Notify-Ack  5               RFC6833bis

We should add there all the code points of messages that are re-defined in this document and ask IANA to update the registry so that the entries point to this document (and not anymore 6830).

Did I got it right?