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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci ([e-mail]) 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.
>