IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 15 November 2012 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 E258E21F88DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 y6DI5TDQCoTs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3490121F8891 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr13so636137wgb.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=ebMAfPyVqptKTc8EBTiMiK15f4za92RTQLdg4IDPUFY=; b=BuehJglkzKoNLaoYIIGLycK5c2/MntMSoNV7kM/RpVVLpM0LX0ojW9P72ENt7XFrAR rtwagPMduJ1NXhFfL1lAqbzHr/D13sFXoORY8VGRntfuxqy/mNTskfTt6i9NkcR+FORi wcfIJkGI/7xs+UFB5I1//F571Mj+jOIH27guVSf50/Nvr7ond290R4qodUuUazLk7wF7 gjVrnhoA06j1lOoPe3bwY0wTSjTvmcGULWddXf8WFoFCNOu+lKXpDuId3eskiZD8WGt7 RXec0P3rEsFTzDnrnVhRxvY2unFGWY3WC5iuh3uTdFa4myMHfjcUOKSTyHby9clohfyo vNOg==
Received: by 10.180.7.197 with SMTP id l5mr83383wia.13.1352990022350; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp164-04.enst.fr (dhcp164-04.enst.fr. [137.194.165.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fa9sm7625419wib.5.2012.11.15.06.33.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <1C49DB9E-6BD3-4A8A-8B19-2D5A8F4DAC94@apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7617A74B-6E11-4C9B-A1B8-73C3E332983C@gigix.net>
References: <20121113144545.12836.71935.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKFn1SFy2+hXJLVtEpkdXfNuXA31ybmYnBFFPXj-73kb3tD+yw@mail.gmail.com> <1C49DB9E-6BD3-4A8A-8B19-2D5A8F4DAC94@apnic.net>
To: George Michaelson <ggm+ietf@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFmjLfz1zSmXP19tJr9rHP2N4fjK7So90ExRvwepr1ngTL7ZUkrjCJ1iSuC2LTDCHQC6x9
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:33:44 -0000

 Hi George,

On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:50 , George Michaelson <ggm+ietf@apnic.net> wrote:

> I think this document isn't ready for IETF last call.

We are open to any suggestion to make the document ready for it. ;-)


> 
> I think the context of an experimental assignment which heads to
> distributing IPv6 addresses to end-entities, even if the experiment
> is not intended to be globally routable, poses questions about how
> the address management function is going to work. Can the working
> group be asked to discuss how this is meant to be interpreted in
> the light of RFC2050 based processes? It might avoid future pain
> if its clear how the IAB and the RIR understand these addresses and
> their management.
> 
> The experiment has all the attributes of a general, wide-ranging
> address distribution and management activity. I haven't seen any
> substantive discussion of this in the WG mailing lists, and I'm
> worried this hasn't been documented, or understood.

Well, clearly I am missing something. WOuld you mind be a bit more specific? Are you asking to have rough consensus on specific points? Which points?

thanks

Luigi

> 
> cheers
> 
> -George

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email