IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 13FA2130DE1 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GF6SkxsrhSeD for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D494126CC7 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8BM0Kqn002695; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:01:05 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2mep4b00w3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:01:04 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w8BM11YK027179; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:01:03 -0400
Received: from zlp27125.vci.att.com (zlp27125.vci.att.com [135.66.87.52]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w8BM0vNS026968; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:00:57 -0400
Received: from zlp27125.vci.att.com (zlp27125.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27125.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 7FBAD16A3EE; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.147]) by zlp27125.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 6D56716A3EC; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.139]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.147]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:00:56 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
CC: Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUSUxnqYCQtt45cUGrQKtyQStbFKTqbE2xgADw4oCAACyCgIAAAhwAgAA5zYD//8IUwIAAUWqA///Jx+A=
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:00:56 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C888405854@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <153661454107.16021.14181238567935017697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <82C0DF7A-E661-48DF-ABCE-7C830E875E70@gmail.com> <f51f97af-5b4c-ac7f-b239-bc39088a263a@joelhalpern.com> <CAMMESsxdBxCCdAVL5LR-QcknucoKayNFV7mp=jGX+txxVz4fog@mail.gmail.com> <8A78EF35-B0E4-43EC-A6B7-EB7DED60210F@gmail.com> <CAGE_Qexi9hkxEVfkLwy85N94mLbF8xLJ9ycgLgTctN2=ZC5M5A@mail.gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8884057A0@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <7DD44D1F-06E5-494D-B760-B1462FD9DC01@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DD44D1F-06E5-494D-B760-B1462FD9DC01@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.164.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-09-11_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809110216
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/eo3geohxNm-KeRNzDa3_owzN2qI>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (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: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:44:26 -0000

If we want to get lisp-intro done now, we should leave the reference to RFC6830. If change to the bis, we need to wait until they are published as they also would be listed normatively.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:14 PM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>
Cc: Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>; lisp@ietf.org list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

> I don’t see lisp-sec as essential to implementing lisp-intro. I don’t know why it was listed as normative? To me, it is providing additional information.

I agree LISP-SEC is additional information for an introductory document. You bring up a good point.

> If the working group agrees, I can check with the RFC-Editor if can move lisp-security to informative. I think the change will only need author and AD approval. Does anyone have any concerns? Or is lisp-security “almost done” and should continue to wait?

I agree with your proposal. But have another question. If we update the lisp-intro to move this reference to Informative, do you at the same time change all occurences of 6830/6833 to the bis document equivalents or do you want to push lisp-intro through?

I would say go for the latter since the information in 6830/6833 has not changed when shuffling sections around into 6830bis/6833bis. So Albert, the information in RFC6830 is not obsoleted but the document may be.

What do you think?

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email