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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Diff looks good to me. Thanks Med!

Dino

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 11:42 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, all,
> 
> The changes are now available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57
>> À : Dino Farinacci; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-lisp-
>> [e-mail]
>> Objet : RE: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>> 
>> Re-,
>> 
>> Seems we are all in agreement.
>> 
>> I implemented the changes to 8113bis in my local copy.
>> 
>> Thank you, Brian.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>> 
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
>>> À : Brian E Carpenter
>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-12-21 09:18, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>> Brian wants to drop the reference to 6833bis from 8113bis. I am fine
>> with
>>> that. That reference being at the top of the draft saying “Updates
>> 6833bis”.
>>> If we remove that, he may concur. Please confirm Brian (again).
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, that would resolve my concern.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>>>> Like I have mentioned to you before, the IETF “Updates” lingo is
>> confusing
>>> and really not useful unless a draft replaces a previous draft. And this is
>>> not the case here.
>>>> 
>>>> That's a debate for the RFC-interest list perhaps. IMHO the issue is that
>>> "Updates" sometimes means "Extends" and sometimes means "Modifies".
>>> "Obsoletes" sometimes also implies "Replaces", but that doesn't seem to
>>> create confusion.
>>> 
>>> Then maybe those words should be used.
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>>  Brian
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dino
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dino, Med, please confirm if I am reading the thread properly:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe that the proposal is to make the small change below to
>> 6833bis
>>> and to drop the "updates" reference from 8113bis to 6833bis.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe Dino's question was whether Brian agreed that the combination
>>> suggested would address his concern.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 12/20/18 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>> I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can
>>>>>>> logically cite 8113, which it replaces.
>>>>>>> Frankly I think you've collectively created a plate of citation
>>>>>>> spaghetti by not moving the IANA considerations for the type field
>>>>>>> registry into 6830bis, which is where they naturally belong. If you
>>>>>>> don't want to do that, I think you have to leave them in 8113bis and
>>>>>>> simply lose the citation of 6833bis, which serves no purpose that
>>>>>>> I can see.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>  Brian
>>>>>>> On 2018-12-21 06:32, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’ll make that change if Brian thinks it fixes the issues he raised.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>> ngo
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:35 PM, <[e-mail]>
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
>>>>>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>>>>>>>>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> 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, <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
>>>>>>>>>>>> À : Joel M. Halpern
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-
>>> ietf-lisp-
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp