IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 02 December 2014 19:02 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 E842D1A0358 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 2fUjCOI6lzwr for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6765A1A6FD8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id fp1so13765152pdb.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:56 -0800 (PST)
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=XpizN8cytCBnCfDyzFvqxwCXeeI2001LfvrBVDDNwXg=; b=Myemhws57k6nsfjAgltt2iOi6SRon+oyeBLMEAgSQCOi3WE5KOiHF6qfrkDMuywmzK R3cnKYR5pAGiGO5rP+j32O0lVbDxxdj+vTL6RIK7BTdV8tia7r3Hzuy4k6zP8hBBi2FB 82O2w5mRXtSzJa1arrgoNjb6+PgrcD8w8O0EJSpwP0rw+tZ+jSrbF99WDncZKweQSIwB 6KsfaN+ikkRXbz1OBS3pzLeoZ5uzagWR5fykvJlwdUx2WmxQlWGfTsFlk4ZLkjdVxVA3 EzptoTEVe7LWySftyBbk5gNVMPGL4ApzoRvnahI4DemuHKV+zEFBt4SYkG1ywCS33Gpi 2zaA==
X-Received: by 10.70.27.225 with SMTP id w1mr1559649pdg.40.1417546916593; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.2] (mobile-166-171-249-118.mycingular.net. [166.171.249.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm20985706pdw.87.2014.12.02.11.01.55 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:53 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com>
References: <BD206B2B-8788-4595-8349-18404BE0A592@gmail.com> <AA3EDE9A-F22B-4DB7-8414-003F0875E11B@gmail.com> <DA93E662-48DF-428A-87A9-F8D8EDB08A99@gigix.net> <44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com>
To: Darrel Lewis <darlewis@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HQDXj5G3bniODnJTK2yAGm8Kvbg
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type
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: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 19:02:48 -0000

So let's have one.

Dino

> On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) <darlewis@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> About point (1) of Dino’s mail: 
>> 
>> The proposed encoding is based on a bitwise approach that today reserves specific bits to encapsulation formats that at this time are not WG documents anywhere in the IETF. The WG should be aware that the dependencies introduced in the document may slow down its progress.
> 
> In general, I believe this points out that we need a Registry for LCAF types that is independent of this document status.  Certainly we want to encourage future types to be developed independent of the LCAF draft’s status.  That is, I would like to see LCAF go to publication independent of any particular AF extension’s progress/use.  I believe Joel said something similar at the mic a few meetings ago.
> 
> -DArrel
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email