IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Mon, 20 August 2012 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
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 B5AE121F86A4 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.573, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jeLBT32rUBWd for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3061121F869A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUDJAaU5KA9iU1KYJbsWjUz3oHDpeNdO8@postini.com; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:50:25 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:47:30 -0700
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q7KDlTh68360; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:47:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201208201347.q7KDlTh68360@magenta.juniper.net>
To: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC4FDFDE.292F8%terry.manderson@icann.org>
References: <CC4FDFDE.292F8%terry.manderson@icann.org>
X-MH-In-Reply-To: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> message dated "Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:58:38 -0700."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <34981.1345470448.1@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:47:28 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:50:25 -0000

Terry,

> John,
> 
> The draft is a LISP control message data format document, it is not
> specifying the precise behaviors of l2/l3vpn over LISP. It enables those
> workgroups to have or work on solutions (should they so choose) that can be
> transported by LISP. There is no mandatory statements here to say they must.
> Just as the document describes a geo location (s4.4) LISP is the common
> denominator here. I do not see any value in splitting this one document into
> numerous different documents housed in many different workgroups.

Specifying encoding/format without specifying semantics is not going
to produce multi-vendor interoperable implementations.

Moreover, doing this would allow a vendor to label their solution
as "based on IETF standards", effectively creating an end run to
the IETF process.

Given that, the WG should not accept the draft, as it defines a
whole bunch of code points without any companion document that
defines semantics of these code points.

Yakov.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email