Re: [RTG-DIR] RTGDIR Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-13.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:53 PM Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> See some discussion inline regarding the IANA Considerations, RFC
> 7042, and RFC 7042BIS.
>
> > On Dec 12, 2023, at 6:21 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Minor Issues:
> > -------------
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Section 11 IANA Considerations: This needs to direct IANA to update
> > references to RFC 5798. Suggest adding wording like: "IANA is
> > requested to update all IANA Registry references to [RFC5798] to be
> > references to [this document]." (Alternatively, instead of “all IANA
> > Registries” it could list the protocol number, 48-bit MAC address
> > block, IPv4 multicast address local network control block, and IPv6
> > link-local scope multicast addresses registries.)
>
> I don’t mind adding this at the start but since this document
> obsoletes RFC 5798, I believe it should still contain all the IANA
> references in the “IANA Considerations”.

Sure, I said nothing about removing anything in Section 11. I just
suggested one sentence to be added where that sentence included
either the words "all IANA Registries" or a more specific list of
the relevant registries.

> > Nits:
> > -----
> >
> >...
> >
> > Section 1.1, Point 2: I believe it is good practice to include the
> > Errata fixed by a revision in the Informational References. As an
> > example, RFC 7176 fixes Errata 2869 in RFC 6326 which it obsoletes and
> > thus the Informational References for RFC 7176 include the following:
> >   [Err2869]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 2869, RFC 6326,
> >              <http://www.rfc-editor.org>
>
> I don’t agree that listing the Errata on an obsoleted draft is a
> good practice. I’m not going to do this.

Then we diagree. The Errata are a reference for the statement in
rfc5798bis that Errata are fixed and I would not suggest the
reference if there were not such a statement in the document. But it's
not that important.

> > ...
> >
> > Section 8.3.1 Potential Forwarding Loop: There is a word missing in
> > the final one-sentence paragraph. Suggest "…Routers to these
> > forwarding…" -> "…Routers avoid to these forwarding…".

I put the missing word in the wrong place above, It should have been
"…Routers to avoid these forwarding…"

> > Section 11 IANA Considerations: The reference to [RFC7042] should be
> > replaced by a reference to the rfc7042bis draft.
>
> RFC 7042 is a normative reference currently. If I were to update the
> reference, I’d want to make it informative as not to gate this draft
> just based on an IANA registry name update. I believe it was you who
> suggested adding this reference in the first place. Can you suggest
> updated text if I update the reference?

I don't see why any gating should occur since rfc7042bis seems to be
ahead of rfc5798bis in the process. I suggest you just put in a
reference to [RFC7042] in Section 7.3 where I had suggested a
reference to rfc7042bis and ignore my suggestion above re Section
11. If I am correct, as rfc5798bis proceeds through the process, at
AUTH-48 or before, IANA or some AD will point out to you that RFC 7042
has been / is being obsoleted and ask about updating the reference
to be to the RFC-to-be that the rfc7042bis draft turns into. If this
happens, I request that you accept this change.

> Thanks,
> Acee

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]