Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Tue, 16 February 2016 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F101A9140; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:44:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CryTWJSZ7qIP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E471A9110; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:44:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1204; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455662659; x=1456872259; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=5fyBWaxXJ10T9rPGSXlp321pq7rKP+rAuPK0MjWJStA=; b=NpOZHV8Qd/73WjwUEBYIhL5y3E5r3X1ejI/+9kFOXh4885fTFAAyp1bV GZ19aIqFfi9BMDnwUzdYAM+CgLcW405derluDv6x9RkjDpnACybmtNIh8 M+QODVxykVhL9gbVAthxgr+q0yr36jp5O4sef/ypjvMkVcIwFgT+zXjiv 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAgA8pcNW/5BdJa1egzqBPwa4HYITA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZ4YNAoE7OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQgEBBDo/EAIBCDYQMiUCBAENBYgau0wBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4YRhDWIbAEEknCEEAGNWI5zjkABHgEBQoICGRSBN?= =?us-ascii?q?GqHKCQZfAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,456,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="239343853"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Feb 2016 22:44:18 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1GMiIE5015776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:44:18 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:44:17 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:44:17 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, Luigi Iannone <>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRaEHsoX4wm6EbUU2zdG+H0868d58u3uQA//+3JwCAAQKOAP//vsSA
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:44:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:44:22 -0000

On 2/16/16, 4:37 PM, "iesg on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
< on behalf of> wrote:


>To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years
>there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent
>allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend
>the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every
>possible situation.)
>Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other
>than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent
>allocation, I don't see much that can be said.
>If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that
>after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the
>usual criteria for such requests.

The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
"sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?

At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?