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

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On September 11, 2018 at 5:15:38 AM, Luigi Iannone ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) 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?

Ciao

L.