Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 19 May 2021 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1623D3A1B7C; Wed, 19 May 2021 12:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gy1qB-vKx8ZX; Wed, 19 May 2021 12:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456CC3A1B7A; Wed, 19 May 2021 12:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ja.int.chopps.org.chopps.org (047-026-251-217.res.spectrum.com [47.26.251.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B41380E6C; Wed, 19 May 2021 19:06:27 +0000 (UTC)
References: <162092059520.16031.2606295470570253120@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESsw7V4YrsgUf9RR7GOqmTrc9T0gxVs7omF4E34zg0R2RgQ@mail.gmail.com> <8702605F-CF59-4F1E-B4CE-02951B894D1F@juniper.net> <BY5PR11MB4337994AA5C89060CAEE3E2FC1519@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ddcfb6db-f5e4-1aa7-e45f-c9b5905de147@cisco.com> <CAMMESsyk0=ro8V3bVQddU=kn+Z7howEiCZ6mGP7bmFnWvMqXOA@mail.gmail.com> <CF010668-3238-4C01-BAC3-EB8A349EA169@cisco.com> <66662452-4BC0-4A8D-9392-12D1A3DAFF7E@juniper.net> <DB87B31E-22AD-468E-9EA9-4702BB270BE0@cisco.com> <a5991c52-1536-8d1d-6289-66d8fe2ae713@cisco.com> <BF31A944-CE8D-4598-A0CE-0971D93C4DFF@cisco.com> <BY5PR11MB4337B6F0E98672F7A3250A11C12B9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxb2SKyapJnbBqN4oz5PLtvC_agLbFsOVNwzLzfiQM4yw@mail.gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB4337CC68B9E0A6E8AFFF3765C12B9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 27.2
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:06:17 -0400
In-reply-to: <BY5PR11MB4337CC68B9E0A6E8AFFF3765C12B9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <m2k0nubl1p.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/CKE-qMYTFHiQ-v9N5-A-4xymxkg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 19:06:33 -0000

My final input would be that it is important to maintain the linkages. So if an RFC creates a registry and then that registry's name is changed by another RFC then, unfortunately, I think that the second RFC updates the first.

Otherwise I agree with Les.

How about we pick names that don't need updating in the future?

Thanks,
Chris.


"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> writes:

> Alvaro -
>
> I don’t find the referenced draft relevant to this case.
>
> Our difference of opinion has to do with the function of a codepoint registry.
> Registries are created as a place to both document existing codepoints and to be updated when the need for additional codepoints arises.
> There is no benefit or need (IMO of course) for an RFC which initially created the registry to be marked as "updated" when new codepoints are added to the registry - which is really all that is happening here.
>
> Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the name of the registry is not subject to change?
> Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the set of TLVs under the purview of the registry is not subject to change?
> Why are either of these cases functionally any different from adding a new sub-TLV codepoint to the registry?
>
> I do agree that this is not worth the time being spent on it. So, you have my input. I leave it to the ADs/WG chairs/IESG review to close this issue.
> Thanx for listening.
>
>    Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:55 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <acee@cisco.com>om>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>; John
>> Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
>> extensions@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; lsr-
>> chairs@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Subject: RE: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
>> extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Les:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> In this case the name is being changed, a new column is added, and all
>> the existing code points are updated in light of the new column.
>>
>> I realize this may not be enough for you.  Instead of all of us
>> discussing this specific case, we should focus our energy on clearly
>> defining what “Updates” means — there’s a proposal that could be a
>> starting point [1].
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2021 at 12:33:27 AM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
>>
>> > The only legitimate reason to update an older
>> > document would be if we are actually changing
>> > in some way one or more of the existing codepoints
>> > already defined in the registry. That is not
>> > happening here.