Re: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 23 October 2009 12:55 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429423A6831 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.238
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G3CbxPKADBst for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750003A657C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 866762032C; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 89BFE446D; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Luigi Iannone <luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <0F04DDD8-A0DB-4ECD-A513-F4D6DC942F1A@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <0F04DDD8-A0DB-4ECD-A513-F4D6DC942F1A@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> (Luigi Iannone's message of "Sat\, 26 Sep 2009 15\:13\:56 +0200")
Message-ID: <tslaazimfqg.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:46 -0000
>>>>> "Luigi" == Luigi Iannone <luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> writes: Luigi> New proposed one: Luigi> draft-iannone-lisp-mapping-versioning-00 proposes Luigi> introducing the optional possibility for LISP header to Luigi> transport map version numbers. Luigi will provide a new Luigi> version of the draft which will include both discussion Luigi> from the mailinglist as well as the discussion with all Luigi> LISP developers. This means that all the details of the map Luigi> versioning support will be detailed in the versioning draft Luigi> and not in the main LISP specs. After publication of the Luigi> new map versioning draft, the WG will discuss its technical Luigi> validity and how to proceed with the work. The major intent in my mind when opening issue #16 was to figure out if we had consensus behind text in LISP 04. (We did not and ended up removing the r-bit). The chairs' consensus call on the issue is attached below. >Darrel and I have discussed the resolution of the map versioning >proposal. > >At this point, the WG has not received a request to adopt Luigi's >draft, although he indicated we might receive such a request in the >future. >The chairs believe that we'd need to see somewhat more support for a >specific proposal than we've seen for map versioning to date in order >to adopt that proposal. If we did receive sufficient support to adopt >something as a WG draft, assigning the flag would be easy. So, I think the next step is to update the draft and to when you are ready to ask the WG if it is interested in adopting the work. We'd want to have discussion on the list and probably discussion in a face-to-face meeting. However we definitely can update the description of an issue in the tracker.
- [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning … Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map version… Sam Hartman