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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

John, Alvaro,

do we have a consensus whether we need the update to RFC 7370 or not?


thanks,
Peter



On 13/05/2021 21:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Alvaro –
> 
> FWIW, I agree w John here.
> 
> There are many examples – to cite a few:
> 
> Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS 
> reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, 
> inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute 
> TLVs)
> 
> …
> 
> Reference
> 
>      [RFC5305][RFC5316][RFC7370][RFC8668]
> 
> RFC 8868 is not marked as updating RFC 7370.
> 
> RFC 7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5316/RFC 5305.
> 
> Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 (Extended IP reachability, MT 
> IP. Reach, IPv6 IP. Reach, and MT IPv6 IP. Reach TLVs)
> 
> …
> 
> Reference
> 
>      [RFC5305][RFC7370]
> 
> Again, RFC7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5305.
> 
> I think it is sufficient to request that IANA add the new RFC to the 
> list of References for the modified registry.
> 
>     Les
> 
> *From:* Lsr <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *John Scudder
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM
> *To:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
> 
>     On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>            This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing
>         registry.
> 
>         Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s
>         normal for an
>         RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a
>         previous RFC that
>         established that registry. I think the “updates” just confuses
>         matters and
>         clutters things up, and should be removed.
> 
> 
>     In this case the document is not only registering a value.  It is
>     changing the name of the registry, adding an extra column, and
>     updating all the other entries (§11.1.*).  The Updates tag is used
>     because it significantly changes the registry.
> 
> Still seems unnecessary to me, registries are moving targets, citation 
> of all the relevant RFCs in their references should be sufficient. So, 
> the registry would be updated so that it cited both this spec and 7370, 
> and someone wanting to know “how did the registry get this way?” would 
> be able to work it out.
> 
> I’m not going to fight about it; the “updates” is not very harmful. I 
> say “not very” because the diligent reader might be led to think they 
> need to go read RFC 7370 in order to properly understand this spec, and 
> waste some time realizing that isn’t true. Since for better or worse we 
> don’t have a firm definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it 
> comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end.
> 
> $0.02,
> 
> —John
>