IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 04 June 2015 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.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 EAF311A00A7 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 cTyirF9HoLWB for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8231A004C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcxw10 with SMTP id w10so13872585qcx.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ihj22uZoZNJdF2WOJ5xrTVxiOawiu223GyMW5mTWMdA=; b=PEkeXW8K6aBVNOQlCtktJkrEvEVPloyW8qKS0wF14CqjFoSBDiZNztbcy1vk8DL31J Ug9XRIg3V33P7lh9iHyPbxPAqkontwtYJoAVyJ9QwgZB0a+iBx7ripF9sxjAsrkGEq1Z BM8jNDk1dZPTzhI+ZG3I6FG7hYgTGyz94nlAnjc0A2C2NB5dmX7szH2UqjG/0pXdpiwO IvGi5B2wsv0LLn0XUzJZy4/RngiILNuemE660TPXoizyaDj0XjGsSawr3HBzlsS7rpVN EBOXFOtc7rNidSJc85aBakIo8i+Z5jtbBGw1KdvD+nEPqPMMatn4zSR6BtDdwismoE0I fppQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.26.139 with SMTP id l11mr67601985qkh.3.1433395607811; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:4701:1df0:25ee:4fba:5f8a:ba86? ([2601:9:4701:1df0:25ee:4fba:5f8a:ba86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 188sm1787741qhh.48.2015.06.03.22.26.45 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C100B2F3-12D5-4D1C-A871-4467D1019E15"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB143061359489A70478CFC14FA5B30@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:26:44 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <82E787F8-1BD1-4F2F-A286-227873019288@gmail.com>
References: <96CCC975-4D04-46F4-ABA9-D5BF6A77C451@gigix.net> <1F6A3E9B-62E7-4B5D-99F3-2DE6AC0FB13F@gigix.net> <BY1PR0501MB14301C95C338B693B870DCEBA5B60@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <199AEC90-B132-4493-BB7D-E3088093F222@gigix.net> <BY1PR0501MB143061359489A70478CFC14FA5B30@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/CZ259U_xhQ0BBVRSsO9Q2LqryCU>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02
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: <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, 04 Jun 2015 05:26:50 -0000


> On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Does this sound about right?
> 

I think the text you suggest is fine. But we haven't ever used the term "OAM" before. I would like all the documentation to be consistent so would suggest using "RLOC reach ability mechanisms". 

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email