Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
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 07E421ACE89; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 EIz7RpUyBEle; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AC0B1ACE7A; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05314241553; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1455666790; bh=JYHob9zVa2MtlMH5tnWA+AMN8q1UvVFNGKluIxGTVZk=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:From; b=oSYO5bcAkilWlPF1RMgAbhPb3MMqu22ULNdny2faXDVVk110XOE2mTr6nfwBuNJHf MaNFddjxxAtUEn5VGu1GYeSfD21xvV9gQTq0bxT3abtvGMTBI4XKXruAyP0gKRio7w PWmWdcbcvgV+rAcfF/jNQvOcJ4aJLYB2MvjCy6ZE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.231.181.254] (mobile-166-171-058-042.mycingular.net [166.171.58.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3463D240D2E; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:53:05 -0500
Message-ID: <50sus3sgbqr0yhw275dcc7fl.1455666785804@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: "jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_39179455904494190"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/8v23MFUMfSacVxMXP6XMj-mU-Ao>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (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 23:53:12 -0000

I don't think the future IESG would appreciate it if we told them that they must allocate if condition X is met.  Just as the initial request for a permanent code point was a judgment xall, so will the future reqest.  In fact, to write the conditiobs, we would have to copy text from a number of RFCS and then add specifics to the judgement calls those prescribe.  That does not sound like the right thing to do.
Yours,Joel


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Date: 2/16/2016  5:44 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, damien.saucez@gmail.com Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with
  DISCUSS and COMMENT) 
On 2/16/16, 4:37 PM, "iesg on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
<iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

Hi!

>To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years
>there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent
>allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend
>the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every
>possible situation.)
>
>Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other
>than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent
>allocation, I don't see much that can be said.
>
>If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that
>after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the
>usual criteria for such requests.

The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
"sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?

At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

Thanks!

Alvaro.