IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] One comment to draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-05.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217B8129541 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:07:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 vKlwaasIVyjG for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15815129538 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0ED5380013; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:07:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1486062420; bh=aI5bb7I4TsLSKrzTi4rSvzlRUbPOBZSiY3BR5cURUpM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QEYdZTHwR+ydqx9zr3pIEbZ9221f+DDfUdwFXvuaquifHDwQjLy2t2JKsQCwLOKsH gVJdsnNsYkL7xno0j7/KJVzAHmmiNa86uqEKoDR8PNn5clMuJYWUZbim8EKGFd+STJ HLZEUQDT8X8wzwiPLyhzOPvdf3A23KrEN9IPpB0s=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 771F51C0AA6; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:07:00 -0800 (PST)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.3778.1486059811.4842.i-d-announce@ietf.org> <E29F9348-438C-4551-B383-ECE62118C585@gmail.com> <8a09a5a2-b252-1d25-cb26-a04be2b9b824@joelhalpern.com> <6C4A0552-F74C-4BE7-886D-F8C09B3A098E@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <3f4af018-7016-0539-50c9-f7d467f0230d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:06:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6C4A0552-F74C-4BE7-886D-F8C09B3A098E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HC4y12jIrEvdUgLGmurIVKJgI0o>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] One comment to draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-05.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Feb 2017 19:07:02 -0000

Ithink we need to take care with the wording so that we do not introuce 
a normative dependence on 6833bis.  The wording I saw in your email 
looked like it would produce such a dependence.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/2/17 1:58 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Did we? Why can’t it all be independent?
>
> Dino
>
>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> I had not realized we intended to defer creation of the registry until we publish 6833bis.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 2/2/17 1:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> Mohamed, the statement “This document updates RFC6830.” is too broad and
>>> easily open to misinterpretation. See my suggestion below.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest this wording (and possibly not in the abstract):
>>>
>>> This document introduces a new LISP message type so extenstions to the
>>> protocol may be experimented with. The code point is defined in
>>> RFC6833bis in which this document references as well as describes how
>>> the sub-types for the code point are used.
>>>
>>> Dino
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email