IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 21 November 2012 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC6E21F887E; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:42:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VHhYQcSQIsXq; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A7221F8A21; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 3742818C0C9; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:42:55 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Message-Id: <20121121204255.3742818C0C9@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:42:55 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:42:57 -0000

    > From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>

    >> Allocation != reservation.

    > You're hairsplitting on semantics in a way that is mostly unhelpful to
    > the discussion at hand.

I _thought_ that the point of the messages from Geoff and others (who were
questioning about how there were no details in the document of how the
allocation would work) was about _how_ the space was to be handed out - to
which the allocation/reservation distinction _is_ important.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email