Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]

Thanks Brian.  Authors, please do so.
Yours,
Joel

On 2/13/15 1:09 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Yes, a new version can be posted.
>
> Brian
>
> On 2/13/15 12:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Given that Brian has signed off on the current version, and that this is
>> explicitly on the IESG agenda, I would like Brian's confirmation that
>> posting a new version is acceptable (it seems like a good idea to me.)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 2/13/15 8:51 AM, Black, David wrote:
>>> Yes.  I think we've discussed and reached conclusions on everything
>>> except whether
>>> to add text on the IPv6 UDP zero checksum topic.  Could I suggest
>>> submission of
>>> a -12 version of the draft that captures everything that's been
>>> discussed/resolved?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net]
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:38 AM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: Dino Farinacci; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos;
>>>> Damien
>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>>> [B]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same
>>>>> output as
>>>> its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
>>>>> The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same"
>>>>> and that
>>>> needs to be corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent progress thanks.
>>>>
>>>> So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer
>>>> multicast
>>>> groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the
>>>> underlay
>>>> provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay.
>>>>
>>>> Did I get it right?
>>>>
>>>> L.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --David
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
>>>>>> To: Black, David
>>>>>> Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert
>>>>>> Cabellos; Damien
>>>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of
>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control
>>>>>> overlay's
>>>> group
>>>>>> address allocation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely
>>>>>>> clear
>>>> that
>>>>>>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that
>>>>>>> mapping
>>>>>>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Luigi Iannone
>>>>>>>> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos;
>>>> Damien
>>>>>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of
>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> G-EID     =>  the EID multicast group G
>>>>>>>>> G-RLOC =>  the RLOC multicast group G
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP
>>>> multicast
>>>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>
>