IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 18 March 2018 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 649BC127876 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 qokWtnq83Pm0 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 26392120727 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6DE240822; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1521405926; bh=+lc+3NB4gN879piCzQJjJxJYN6th1pgorJmlMME1grM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=FW+JHYpP1EZmH+RS0v17a8O/R08bDXrGnNI4e6EX8O2Zt67pSy97k+7ZF/dTlUZ9y pTVG6mD0qI18oILJV6YIMQCu5rU9wQp4m/Q2MykSISmBUNQ+etv3bthYWipHXDKv+o YSjzVjTw13PcbzSbhE7VkFoux46EiZG1oWzbX/VQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from dhcp-913f.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:38e6:93ee:359f:1355]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E2342407B8; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <B6E99388-F4B4-4980-B1F7-3351B4889AB4@gigix.net> <7E37C3CA-3D38-40DC-9162-D2477F8B8412@gmail.com> <05052a56-f6fd-b218-3a06-c516b01a08a8@joelhalpern.com> <93CBA389-8182-436A-9946-D5BD8C9F721C@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7205ee6c-f8a0-b1ce-5d33-8957cbc5a841@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:45:23 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <93CBA389-8182-436A-9946-D5BD8C9F721C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/tuYesNRmP1bjVsWmuDYFrMrncDc>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:45:27 -0000

No idea how it got to this state.  Luigi's suggested fix suffices.
Yours,
Joel

On 3/18/18 4:42 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I can’t defend the text. As an author it was only put in as a request. And I was coached by many on how it should read.
> 
> Why wasn’t this caught earlier?
> 
> Dino
> 
>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> Assuming this 10.4 is now 7.3 and that we are disucssing the text in 4.1, as written the text does not make sense
>> A new document can not specify a preferred value in a section in an existing document.
>>
>> I am not sure what it is trying to say.  It mostly seems to be saying something that is IANA policy (can you request a specific code point from a registry).
>>
>> As best I can tell, it should be removed.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 3/18/18 1:06 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I’ve read 6833bis document.
>>>> My few comments cab be found inline.
>>> See comments inline. New draft enclosed with diff file. I’ll wait 6 hours to post to give you a chance to look it over.
>> ...
>>>>>     Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>>     procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>>>>>     packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4.
>>>>>
>>>> Don’t understand the “in Section 10.4” part. Should be deleted.
>>> This was added when we were writing draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana (RFC8113). It was a request from someone (not Mohammad) I think. Didn’t change.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email