IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] #16: map versioning resolution

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 27 August 2009 14:56 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 921D928C5AC for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.243
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, 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 U+OFg1hOThoC for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED05828C51A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 3B68E641DA; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:56:16 -0400
Message-ID: <tsleiqxz4of.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"
Subject: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:56:16 -0000

The chair would like to ask the authors of
draft-iannone-lisp-mapping-versioning-00 and others involved in the
discussion to comment on Dino's proposed changes for
draft-ietf-lisp-04.

In particular, do you prefer his proposal to your original proposal?
If so, why?

Comments from others on this issue would also be very useful.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email