Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5541A03E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:24:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9hLN0T3eHELS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BECC61A1BED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l18so5338549wgh.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:23:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=6/QIH69zcTm/KF0B48Fme2THI9csc3cJsQktaaWagPs=; b=VH+FkCNMOTX7lWGKP36+WE8aW8/cVh/QfRPVbbbYuOuGD9gHAB2KIi+O3AmC2LYZES BMq/lrBjQQIreqk9hXVldHHvCoS/dqnEkoxz29dF5k3c2qv5cvJNB9U9hq2Gbed9iFvQ 4rZ6r/7C5QNtMdpGUOv31Xx38Tih+sTScXsUzblieEiSWBw2aDXxVTTrsGUZgVZ6JwY2 wr3Ct8DzDtGbGYBFQLNypYkGqQGn62ZZCeIhoHzxcwhG6x8rIouUWbl7p+zgR3eM3Ejp fVVdajC124ERfI03XskX7edqPWA7kpPKaW4KuRrm3uUCxzr7HclD6XMC4UPo6LfU4hKF 4pXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlU8GRFxF9kbV05Jukl1iSIge6kctn+cSl3Qc9Fvxs7vQUwKzjn4p/LjKuYzudBjl29rZv+
X-Received: by 10.180.198.74 with SMTP id ja10mr3940580wic.52.1423729438279; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:d183:b125:16a1:f065? ([2001:660:330f:a4:d183:b125:16a1:f065]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm1497508wia.6.2015.02.12.00.23.56 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:23:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <F18AD38B-DD41-4F32-AE22-98DC331A9CCC@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:23:57 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7317886D-8A3B-4C79-8F82-1A961FCE7A46@gigix.net>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936362ABB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <54DA982D.60200@joelhalpern.com> <B95AA6CA-22D6-4B36-9F7D-09CA46EB5E12@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936363FBB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <F18AD38B-DD41-4F32-AE22-98DC331A9CCC@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZN9SETTeayDcIUnRx2LKL0GhkrI>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Feb 2015 08:24:02 -0000

> On 12 Feb 2015, at 05:39, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 

[snip]
> 
>> So it makes perfect sense to register multicast addresses to the mapping
>>> system as EIDs and they can map to RLOCs of sites that have joined the group.
>> 
>> As part of this, I strongly recommend moving away from use of "G" to refer to
>> multicast groups in both the overlay and underlay.  Careful use of G-EID
>> and G-RLOC would significantly improve clarity.
> 
> Well we have not used G-EID in any documentation. And since we want to encourage the use of SSM in the underlay and how we signal in the overlay, we simply call the "eid" the 2-tuple (S,G).

I second DIno on this point.
In the evolution of this document one discussion point was about the terminology to use. 
The final choice was to avoid to introduce any terminology not used in the current set of RFCs.
Introducing “G-EID” and "G-RLOC” would go against that decision (and confuse the reader since it will never agin find such terms).

What if we drop the dashes?  

G-EID     =>  the EID multicast group G 
G-RLOC =>  the RLOC multicast group G

Yes bit prolix!

Could this work?


Luigi