Re: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 18 February 2016 12:56 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 B99F51A015F; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:56:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 ZOzafU6twOu3; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:56:55 -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 7F4551A009F; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:56:55 -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 57F44880C2; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E551328081A; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:56:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160217210824.1236.47093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <56C5BF8F.7040302@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:56:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160217210824.1236.47093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oMP8rKAdrqeMgm4tmQVQ4SbafQqe77eSe"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/AkUuh-6swH78TrDsQ0zH_ZVIFl8>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with 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: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:56:56 -0000

Hi Ben,

On 2/17/16 4:08 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I share Alvaro's thought that this should be experimental. (And if not
> that, then a BCP).

We can talk about Informational vs. Experimental on the call, but... I
don't see how this could possibly be a BCP. This is guidance for the
management of one block of addresses that is being used by one protocol,
so BCP seems out of line.

Regards,
Brian