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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 25 September 2018 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030F913130A; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLbT8BnFHQ7N; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5141312F4; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so3770210pfj.7; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/wUNTjmjNTXBnsKpOf5Nc7T7ZG/ncMWxRQUwcsX+6X4=; b=PmEvW1RQosxaHehL4bBkUQNj9EcaPNUGlU+W2FWhk95fIZRCLhrJeVoWirGVFZaw8j /NHhTlynjeQ8946EVi9kq9tXgBAEWzoc8rDqmz7LSV4EvkApeDziQirBAWa49r447MQP FiQqSdKw8zFNbSG/koXsJrDXCbyzZiwPYb7E9cH+v/Ieri8FugzlygguzTXYvUTb6wnH yblE9xcPQd8G14Zdc/MY7xIDp0/UCHLoCEL8JnxZuASye2WhzPQChvStnkTYTIs7n085 FCbTKPmEXqF2Yy19IBd1dK1JLsrFloSE33UlO1F1Ds0RP4N5R/2hGPrWt1L3oO8qW8/K Xa5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/wUNTjmjNTXBnsKpOf5Nc7T7ZG/ncMWxRQUwcsX+6X4=; b=BNPhsAfo4dxFqaB2puRutXeMJKvP1FTbKVIUCPpkgnp9KoXW6NGgGPyb0HftdSepRW 7vjjgcVQ33ZiEIVPLq40R16g7zPA6A5WkXB3UO/QAuf89miGW7tsePO1lF5CfFRNMAew 8CICnnPrLswavouMN+VATLKZH41jnGDyqe0MEStYlSIupY1WXnE+4rXSSNpc09ePenry 7B9WV4H4MMqRBU9lIx6Xu6U1D7qhIU+Dt59+BUGoYYbyZoh+QQ84I+w46FgH+j59O9ke DOG9yDMSmAQGRX9/3HVJKKx0XS0VwxOYTgumtH31dm2Wt6d3DawcJ/X373KdrJlGOTqo jIiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogsAOJVbchqhx3S5stnPQySgDyDbBZ3wlyY6WYTgnVxmn4NabYT mZX77s9pGSMGrJb27mSctNE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61+sQSVk0Bwrx7o4dtFgOsAtHwWoPH2IwmgqhHKs37aPFGpIChShAm7W2pOed3saa8lIVnRVg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e60c:: with SMTP id g12-v6mr1731830pgh.308.1537891392727; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.79.57] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z19-v6sm3646093pgi.33.2018.09.25.09.03.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE658F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:03:10 -0700
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3553C470-8D15-4876-89FA-23A13830D27D@gmail.com>
References: <153661582508.16057.11407647013027747215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C9397F28-CC26-4CC6-8D46-23839E2F3A2F@gmail.com> <CAMMESsw=DaJFw1DoQeZR8NsB46pe5RPo1SVW=FUetYg90y7-dg@mail.gmail.com> <881C546E-62A6-4C92-8AE7-CA166A554AD3@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE658F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/cFBzBukW_NPUFrzs8kKT81_vcTk>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:03:15 -0000

That is not the part I had a problem with. Consider it added.

Dino

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:22 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino, 
> 
> I think that Alvaro has a valid point about rfc8113bis to be cited as normative. 
> 
> This is easy to fix, IMO. Thanks.  
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : lisp [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dino Farinacci
>> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 19:39
>> À : Alvaro Retana
>> Cc : lisp-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org;
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc6833bis-13: (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> 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 <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> On September 11, 2018 at 12:23:04 PM, Dino Farinacci (farinacci@gmail.com)
>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp