IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 20 August 2012 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FB421F853B for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, 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 71-ZsLIsTzhE for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF41121F853A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 707AB18C0BF; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20120820174306.707AB18C0BF@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:43:06 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc'@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:43:11 -0000

    > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>

    > Given that, the WG should not accept the draft, as it defines a whole
    > bunch of code points without any companion document that defines
    > semantics of these code points.

If you're really determined to find something to whine about, I guess maybe we
can just delete those code points for now?

As soon as someone writes an ID which uses them, they can be re-allocated -
and we'll let the IESG worry about which WG to assign that ID to.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email