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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 17 May 2021 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
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 A579F3A3281; Mon, 17 May 2021 03:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 GdXUAyMtAwfS; Mon, 17 May 2021 03:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69CA13A327B; Mon, 17 May 2021 03:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3259; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1621248171; x=1622457771; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cuBWTdWU4VcsEgo3tzbEVl4K7pqFbPV8kWN3nlDbv18=; b=InSARZQWylTR0bcPCC1cyZ+rD2bR6tBv93OHYwGZXNvW6ndxsWJvgwLR nvLGFD9m4UoiZ3eIh2ZbbJ6INgHP8+rTRKXzenPF51pAyB8eYU1uMr4xo 56bRLpUJVe+tVoWufCxfo//n9SS8fCvTscKfSs8yWYd2GdYxwMWlkFUqf k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,307,1613433600"; d="scan'208";a="36073032"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 May 2021 10:42:48 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 14HAglCB002429; Mon, 17 May 2021 10:42:48 GMT
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <162092059520.16031.2606295470570253120@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESsw7V4YrsgUf9RR7GOqmTrc9T0gxVs7omF4E34zg0R2RgQ@mail.gmail.com> <8702605F-CF59-4F1E-B4CE-02951B894D1F@juniper.net> <BY5PR11MB4337994AA5C89060CAEE3E2FC1519@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <ddcfb6db-f5e4-1aa7-e45f-c9b5905de147@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:42:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337994AA5C89060CAEE3E2FC1519@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/blWAvQFzkvBwsKoTDTYKC5eN2_o>
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: Mon, 17 May 2021 10:42:56 -0000

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 <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *John Scudder
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM
> *To:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>rg>; Christian Hopps 
> <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; 
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
> *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 <aretana.ietf@gmail.com
>     <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> 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
>