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

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Albert,

LISP-intro is only blocked by one document, lisp-sec. One could do an update, though as Dino noted, because RFC6830 included both 6830bis and 6833bis, one would need to go thru the document and clean up all the references to RFC6830. And then one would need to wait for these documents to progress as they are both normative. The current version is ok as is - it points to RFC6830 (and datatracker will point a reader to the bis’s).

I’m wondering on another approach. If I recall correctly (my memory may have faded), we had optimism that lisp-sec would be done by now, and so had waited on it. But it is not. Looking at the reference to it in lisp-intro, it is in the security section as “and the lightweight authentication mechanism proposed by LISP-Sec [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] reduces”. I wasn’t involved at the time, but I’m wondering why a “proposed mechanism” merited a normative reference in an informational document?

RFC7322 RFC Style Guide has:
“Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or informative, where normative references are essential to implementing or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references provide additional information”.

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.

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?

Deborah


From: lisp <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Albert Cabellos
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 4:04 PM
To: Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi

I am not familiar with all the IETF procedures, but lisp-intro has been waiting for a missing reference for 1000+ days and the day it will become RFC it will be referencing an obsolete document.

I think that we should make it right, if someone can shepherd me on what to do I´ll be happy to work on it.

Albert

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:37 PM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Right now there is no circular dependency. To summarize:

(1) RFC6830 does not point to 6830bis or lisp-intro.
(2) lisp-intro points to RFC6830.
(3) 6860bis needs to point to RFC6830.

Let’s please don’t change any this. Let’s not make this more complciated then it needs to be and let’s not confuse people, especially the authors. ;-)

Dino


> On Sep 11, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> On September 11, 2018 at 9:50:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Any change to lisp-intro should be done by discussion with the RFC
>> Editor, as it is in the RFC Editor queue (pending reference completion).
>> If the working group considers it acceptable, we could easily ask them
>> to change the references to 6830 and 6833 to the bis documents (after
>> all, it is alreay blocked by documents which depend upon those.)
> The reference would still be circular: rfc6830bis would point at lisp-introduction for architecture details, and that would point back here.
>
> If lisp-introduction was just that (an introduction) and the details were in rfc6830 to start with…. Maybe the easy fix is to just not point to lisp-introduction from rfc6830bis, because the details should be here (and rfc6833bis) already.
>
> s/Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture.//
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 9/10/18 11:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> > If you guys have source for the intro doc, I could point it to bis
>> > documents?
>> >
>> > Dino
>> >
>> >
>> > Begin forwarded message:
>> >
>> >> *Resent-From:* <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>> >> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>> >> *Date:* September 10, 2018 at 2:22:21 PM PDT
>> >> *Resent-To:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >> *To:* "The IESG" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>> >> *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Luigi Iannone
>> >> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >> *Subject:* *Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)*
>> >>
>> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: No Objection
>> >>
>> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=oPZvrLxSbMmHAkPUEKcOEuc_W3yLv78MaueJ0vFnI70&e=>
>> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Drfc6830bis_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=nUPPoB0OOP411rwJQI4vWXc0-ilIPZ5gKw2ya09H85s&e=>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> COMMENT:
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the work on this document!
>> >>
>> >> I have some relatively minor comments/nits:
>> >>
>> >> (1) §18: s/RFC8060/RFC8061
>> >>
>> >> (2) §1: "Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP
>> >> architecture."  First of all, it would seem to me that the
>> >> Architecture should
>> >> be a Normative reference...but I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction says that it
>> >> "is used
>> >> for introductory purposes, more details can be found in RFC6830, the
>> >> protocol
>> >> specification."  This document obsoletes rfc6830...so it seems to me
>> >> that there
>> >> is a failed circular dependency.
>> >>
>> >> (3) References to rfc2119/rfc8174 and rfc8126 should be Normative.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=ugRUj6YxdlcfpWsNYEX-oZU7ob0qzzca0fQtmhDyO5A&e=>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=YJD9Za9-5MS0nO-a4vJG7njhQqMM2mnS730nB-PclZA&s=ugRUj6YxdlcfpWsNYEX-oZU7ob0qzzca0fQtmhDyO5A&e=>