Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
review-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-12-18-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2018-12-27 | |
| Requested | 2018-12-13 | |
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Christian Jacquenet | |
| I-D last updated | 2018-12-18 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -01
by John Drake
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart Telechat review of -02 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2018-12-18 |
review-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-12-18-00
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2018-12-19 IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with issues -------- Comments: --------- I note that this is being raised from Experimental to the standards track. Presumably that depends on the base LISP spec becoming PS. Minor issues: ------------- "This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis." The text doesn't explain which text is updated. This is in contrast to RFC8113, which explains clearly how it updates RFC6830 (*not* RFC6833). Why doesn't this draft claim to update rfc6830bis? I'm going to assume that is an error. In fact, why wasn't the definition of the LISP Packet Types registry moved into the base spec (rfc6830bis)? That is where it belongs. Since rfc6830bis (and rfc6833bis) are still under IESG review, anything in them that needs updating should be updated! The fact is that rfc8113bis extends rfc6830bis, which is not the same thing as "updates". If the WG thinks that implementers of 6830bis need to read 8113bis, there should be a normative reference in 6830bis to 8113bis.