Re: [lisp] Unknown LCAF Types (?) (draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Hi!
> 
> Hmm — let’s start with the positive.  The new text looks good to me.
> 
> OTOH, even if rfc6833bis is the base specification, rfc8060 is an optional extension…. The problem is one of references and document status:  
> 
> rfc8060 is an Experimental document — the current reference in rfc6833bis is Informative, which is ok because there’s just a general reference to the AFI — “LCAF-Type MUST” makes the relationship to rfc8060 Normative and changes the behavior of rfc8060 implementations, so we should change the reference type and formally update rfc8060, which results in a downref, which requires community approval (new IETF LC), which requires the IESG to consider the downref registry, . . .
> 
> I don’t think any of us wants to reopen rfc6833bis at this point. <sigh>

Okay.

> Ideally, rfc8060 would have included that one extra sentence: “an unrecognized LCAF-Type MUST be dropped”.
> 
> We have two other options:
> 
> (1) Let it be.  rfc8060 is Experimental, people “experimenting” with it can figure it out, and when/if the document goes on the Standards Track we can add the text.  I know there are production deployments, but these are mostly controlled (people shouldn’t see unknown types).

Right and true.

> (2) Use lisp-vendor-lcaf, which adds a new Type, to formally update rfc8060 on what needs to be done if an unknown Type is received.  Both documents are Experimental and lisp-vendor-lcaf is in line to be approved next week by the IESG, so there are no cumbersome process issues.

So add the sentence to lisp-vendor-lcaf since we still have time. This is fine with me.

> So…what does the WG want to do?  reopen rfc6833bis, nothing, or use lisp-vendor-lcaf

I vote for lisp-vendor-lcaf.

> [FWIW, my personal preference (as WG participant) is to use lisp-vendor-lcaf.]

Well that's two people in sync. ;-)

Dino