Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-03.txt

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 29 September 2022 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 2501CC14CF1C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hn005pN9GHBT for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA8BC14CF1B for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mdncf2qcLz6GpfH for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1664489458; bh=C3bYaG5M97A+TufGWQSofq/NgzGZMa97g8NMdFL4V70=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=UDy/ab14koTJGx1nEtkc9SR/klwY2z/WmO0qMqu8lK4BK6ur/QMSJd2q7fDLHZ3vx CMAU4TeZ1c/YJHrCD+Nic9EdfmlAkvgfYi89Xp8naJ2KlAahcWMtEDhEIKi2KO8Bt4 n2NamWwu74eAchcVofiBueIwicO6GGPk43ePJ7Go=
X-Quarantine-ID: <5-DRnINY0xvO>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.73] (unknown [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Mdncd73Xzz6GBYJ for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <137e28e8-9f6d-796c-b8d6-f5965c716be1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:10:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <166441964163.25680.3780995688073504994@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <166441964163.25680.3780995688073504994@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1sfCxXWz7ocksfd3tkNuEZlk1kA>
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-03.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:11:03 -0000

Looking at this revision, there seems to be one small aspect missing.

As part of the revision taht led to WG adoption, the distinguished name 
draft added text about how the names are distinguished in the VPN case, 
and says that if it is not a VPN case, uses have to explain how name 
collisions are avoid.  Router name seems ripe for use in many contexts.  
So I would expect this draft to indicate how the names for this use case 
will avoid other uses?

Yours,

Joel

On 9/28/2022 10:47 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>
>          Title           : LISP Transport for Policy Distribution
>          Authors         : Michael Kowal
>                            Marc Portoles Comeras
>                            Amit Jain
>                            Dino Farinacci
>    Filename        : draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-03.txt
>    Pages           : 8
>    Date            : 2022-09-28
>
> Abstract:
>     This document describes the use of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>     (LISP) to encode and transport data models for the configuration of
>     LISP ITRs.
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution/
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-03
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt