Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 16 February 2016 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258981AC3A1; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:59:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 VR6yhxqs7qC3; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7D01A90BE; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A68B88108; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06420328081A; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:59:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=c3=b8rgensen?= <rogerj@gmail.com>
References: <20160215224202.25311.31160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKFn1SHsAj00ngiS083bbPBF0ybRM-YiAd+CzXc_fMECUcfEtA@mail.gmail.com> <6376C1E6-7D8D-489D-8848-003723E3843C@gigix.net>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56C33930.6020900@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:58:56 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6376C1E6-7D8D-489D-8848-003723E3843C@gigix.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LF2TJOCkd0CtQhIdvKJBJHbk0JUPqTKDv"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/4AZVWYksKYMQKv1CIqQdG4sCOXI>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:59:07 -0000

Hi all,

On 2/16/16 5:26 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
> 
> as Roger pointed out there was no explicit discussion about informational vs experimental.

I believe I suggested Informational for the address block request when I
was the shepherding AD for LISP.  The block management draft inherited
that status when it was split out.

> 
> Certainly if the IESG feels that experimental is more suitable (which actually IMHO does) 
> we can change the document intended status for both the management and allocation documents.

I didn't think Experimental was appropriate because the intent was not
to describe any experimentation in the block request draft.

If the IESG believes Experimental is appropriate, I would support adding
text to the document that describes the exit criteria for the experiment.

> 
> For the dates, they can be adjusted before going in the roc editor queue.
> 

Agreed.

Brian

> ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>> On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used in an
>>> experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have missed
>>> the discussion in the archive.]
>>
>> That's a good question. This document is the management part extracted
>> from the other draft so it copied the status from the other document.
>> I guess the question is if both should change status to Experimental
>> or if they're fine as they are?
>>
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> In the request template, the dates should match the ones in
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020.
>>
>> They've been edited at different times, and it is a 3year experiment
>> so the date will have to be adjusted in both document if they're
>> approved,  before they can be published.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other document is draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
>> rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
>> http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no