Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Sun, 18 March 2018 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.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 CE61212946D for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 bZy8FKqEwhaS for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (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 D8A7B126DFF for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id d10so16307748wrf.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XjgrNSYZcQFtfDBMrWk6D2MO76W7omZjLcS0vmQJe+4=; b=K5FdzY7iKsDzJty0D8bujX5wBxo99CA/EBcBlfIbxGLR2lznJbLriB1up0g+gbXBf9 c62FaPkbOXtsjqSNNoy5HVL9UgsQKxcgK7DfPVeASzly2eNVAaZRZkoA+knL5mhc9eA1 dnqHeb+0KOkPTC0TY39B+YdvLMKUOQfWrKoTuFbHvSO7qfJszG+10FqYd2MumVgdwIiG p1RxQB5pqh/1Br4B3hr3CN3b9tfgWQ/H9rbaVd+q/Cs31HceoqGZmOaMb1t/n414//Xm aq8MWvmqEhYoGKtlBckr0VQJSBJT9ThM7CJgb0RyF/fyDrwH54GDrnCKvO9/NfElPQZk JUXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XjgrNSYZcQFtfDBMrWk6D2MO76W7omZjLcS0vmQJe+4=; b=RXDv4KwqS6gjky205ti6MjBNySZ/y4FFKE9yuWr8f4DU9JidY1v9Oo0Doc/333SsUy 6Y/v29fyrLR7f9vTws0ke9ibNCqk4e5bYYIScyxBsK0Nbq7KFzUH96H4/N94UBCSDNvX Uase8N2xe59ON7sSbaJl9n+9LTlHJpRC6g8Biopv1JFB3vswOIycFRYKW0N/FZUMskbU PHurtwxmWAZk2z7vLK7mpJ1vciBgdf1kFVYL95kIr9xLwzfNh4cXvfff51Q3Vuas0WsZ Q19jGV6C2/+WVaP866a3I800Jh5o/VINMH3cV7PxYM4fbvGrMNyLiBAn/y3c6Y2ykldI 4ocQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FBGtM1SfMQAFRDl+mVUxoRtHs29MQ9OjsM1IbuSDkRNxoAHwwi Jx7tczdyycyAWFs5cEuf96iMMoYh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtPa/yC1XIanNeknw/BcTHpbVXcJqTpIaBf7/tFnMmNQ8oKDjD9G1iiO0UchiYl4g7MnRdqww==
X-Received: by 10.223.176.253 with SMTP id j58mr7112935wra.269.1521393728411; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:842e:efaf:8aec:de31? ([2001:67c:1232:144:842e:efaf:8aec:de31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k18sm15629439wmd.4.2018.03.18.10.22.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C5C317F-BB0E-4989-8A62-29A0C48D6A67@gigix.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:22:06 -0700
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <434A06F6-B5DC-4687-AE02-C3A4D563589C@gmail.com>
References: <B6E99388-F4B4-4980-B1F7-3351B4889AB4@gigix.net> <7E37C3CA-3D38-40DC-9162-D2477F8B8412@gmail.com> <0C5C317F-BB0E-4989-8A62-29A0C48D6A67@gigix.net>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/SkRccO3TAHgai7rZpynvDr2Tx14>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:22:12 -0000

FYI, I did have that text in there:

    <t> Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could             
    cache responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache            
    management will need to be resolved so that doing so will be                
    reliable and practical. As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will           
    operate only in a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding            
    Encapsulated Map Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification            
    of caching functionality is out of scope for this document.</t>

Are you looking in the wrong place?

Dino


> On Mar 18, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino,
> 
> thanks for the changes. For me is all good, except the two following points:
> 
>>> 
>>>>  Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache
>>>>  responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management
>>>>  will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and
>>>>  practical.  As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in
>>>>  a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map
>>>>  Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification of caching
>>>>  functionality is left for future work.
>>>> 
>>> s/left for future work/ out of the scope of this document/
>>> 
> 
> You do not agree with this suggestion? Sounds more neutral to me.
> 
>> 
>>>>  Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>  procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>>>>  packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4.
>>>> 
>>> Don’t understand the “in Section 10.4” part. Should be deleted.
>> 
>> This was added when we were writing draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana (RFC8113). It was a request from someone (not Mohammad) I think. Didn’t change.
> 
> I am not against the sentence, is just the "Section 10.4” part, why should a document indicate a preference in a section 10.4?????
> If you change the sentence to:
> 
> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>  procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>  packet type MAY indicate a preferred value.
> 
> 
> That makes more sens to me.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>