IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 04 June 2015 15:02 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 9D4C21B3591 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 17RMMOWKfCdV for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (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 D66451B3595 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkoo18 with SMTP id o18so25256629qko.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:02:42 -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=rbdUmlfYP3WfXxb3kwezEwYoJFBcX+6k7YVHuBxy1+8=; b=cFNJH0lUOUWvu7h3aK+9zZdWp64NRJ+Y+IJB7Dg74sZ8X+A6NHl+QXhciB3Ua+pnSd qqqJiVw3WFyUgmH5ggqgtq1c5dznZ+Y30hbpP9HvriG4X2EqBuuefAGNHWKXtZ49R7uf Brmgp0Z24A3l4nu/hLTEglbVi8ZrSBwoDARFBMUMT1Z8CFHiNtXxpgTTNMaatMRUvJRt y6i0X+Jd7ruZS5JiqSCrliLXTF06rXXwjSPrxZmLUePdKBBc1FT+j0BP1NSix/7RBVNh XA7DJiT09EzZY1KCJwVcfHk74WtjYBH8y2aozn94H+PRs2Ef1FD7ePgsx9tMglisGQwI JVvg==
X-Received: by 10.55.52.12 with SMTP id b12mr18919459qka.22.1433430161200; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.195.220.118] ([166.170.36.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v13sm2471176qhd.31.2015.06.04.08.02.40 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C1281D38-023E-4012-A334-3E94BC69139F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <1D2F1DE4-A8F4-4998-8BBE-7307AAD1467D@gigix.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:02:38 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <54754D2F-C2F6-4CA3-BC61-EE0F8A8CF446@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> <82E787F8-1BD1-4F2F-A286-227873019288@gmail.com> <1D2F1DE4-A8F4-4998-8BBE-7307AAD1467D@gigix.net>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/EpZJ1M1AUln1hcmJfhyGgEYO64M>
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 15:02:48 -0000

Parenthesizing "OAM" would be fine with the text I suggest. 

Dino 

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:26, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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”. 
> 
> Hi Dino,
> 
> I understand your point, but may be OAM is a more general term that covers the RLOC reachability case.
> 
> yet, if it is fine with Ross I guess we can use “RLOC reachability”.
> 
> ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Dino
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email