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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

I think you are saying you prefer to remove the “updates”. Is that right? It was a little confusing given the reply chain.

(I’ve already given my opinion but said I’m not going to go to the mat over it.)

—John

On May 17, 2021, at 8:21 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]> wrote:

That we be my preference as well. We’ve had several discussions on what constitutes “update” and I believe that the consensus was that a document isn’t “updated” unless the current behavior is changed. If we’ve done our jobs, protocols are designed to be extended and these extensions shouldn’t constitute updates.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:55 AM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:54 AM

Peter:

Hi!

As John mentioned, "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.”

I rather you leave it in.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On May 17, 2021 at 6:42:48 AM, Peter Psenak ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> *On Behalf Of *John Scudder
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM
> *To:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Christian Hopps
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[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
>