IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 02 June 2022 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 B40AFC15AAE2; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9yv09ONlVCP; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49AD7C15AAC1; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id f7so3442243ilr.5; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=P5F4rOUhOkFYeCVNGIobL1+boCjnOgVlkpN4TXemkgw=; b=QCtrjJzEvZ9AjH7RE9EHW8o7KG9wWhAuNNDRo9B38RTZY5S+34mAaKMsMCaIMJ0YKk T5UzDssDACfJb2X+uOqQa0TaaGhNHP9wcY2yP8pkyBTa6i+TkL89xn/oJ0kWnAR+rFKu yLNreIG1pOvCstKSbXlzy/0JvDtOOKHK8NuSpcqoDhwQ2EjC/SJuzjp3Z+/0XJQFWiki nvKESjF7JuezKXPuaPDUyj9C/zb4roSB0jDl/w6l+/TMWiYAt04zJRE9H+Q95sUwcseh FMTifLagotbXkk8iAmS37Ch7o71QF29OFoaXQF+ETGYp3DMqJhNrf5vuV+fXFIzYJevQ wtrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=P5F4rOUhOkFYeCVNGIobL1+boCjnOgVlkpN4TXemkgw=; b=vchieF/7mWkBpVnuEN+R/TLFj2Wg8Jw3m7MYOUg+sMPn3tcRi/B5+ErMG7cIZZFzxq 7/jtWW2NHtqZbVaZd60Rtj+Y2jCf14jS6S+e/IDp0E0/pvRThpucY0hsIFMDNTf7OmFP fRmKd+MnPLlKPxTvk3WVUJHIMZwve/7Tyr8s6ZW7aVxnvZ6IeHWVLutMDf71NFvSouqo BPpGyu/TmNdwJ88TG91B4KoJzjJ0GXcfcWWy38DrXyRVw7outKtdIlo2jASpNg7NW3qj xPnMZeDIwZR8PDQcIIz/DewBJC0E0QL+TbLtJjJCjsI9ldkBrptV/QEOXxD2o08rAOoJ HH7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sMAZOkwMMGGNJHCpsxqIS3zHcBOL5SGLbaC0NjAuruYyJ5Gm9 umu9FWcUtOWh0n7e8pqmOLbFd4bzlRBAu6+7CLyJcrHk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6+lpywfrbyhdUqY53+lulbIXFAgJPx7gTGtX+DEuv76ZPo8xRnzXidkPf/KUKIhMexwNifZ7hsQZ/iqA5+eM=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca45:0:b0:2d1:b7cf:26a9 with SMTP id q5-20020a92ca45000000b002d1b7cf26a9mr3007346ilo.52.1654178187365; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165415136062.40377.6986605180685794599@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESsw5Baw5YJk6qo4LUFCy_owhEWFSarZgH3NL0QL_uGrZyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsw5Baw5YJk6qo4LUFCy_owhEWFSarZgH3NL0QL_uGrZyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 06:56:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaJnPNMemfB=BHFMG7-66WGLTP_O6rdqgvDnKgu9f+rfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040d62705e0775f08"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/q8072YY2a3J8VCwGxgzFXRbqDFU>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 13:56:28 -0000

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:49 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The shepherd writeup says:
> >
> > > It is the proper type of RFC since it provides updates to RFC 6834
> Locator/
> > > ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning, which was an experimental
> > > document.
> >
> > I don't follow. Only a Proposed Standard can update an Experimental?
>
> The Shepherd meant an update (lower case), not an "Update" (as in the
> formal action).
>
> This document Obsoletes rfc6834.
>

Hi Alvaro,

Right, I think the goal here is to reissue the Experimental material as
Proposed Standard, after learning whatever was learned from the
experiment.  That's fine, and this should say that.  As written, it looks
like it might be continuing or re-starting the experiment, for which a
Proposed Standard isn't necessary, and that's why I found this confusing.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email