Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Brief reply.

>>>> 
>>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there.
>>> 
>>> Doesn’t make sense to me. That is not a reason. 
>> 
>> It is a reason, maybe one you don’t like, but it is a reason.
>> 
> 
> The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that does not belong to the data-plane. 

The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage the elements in the map-cache. It’s the only place it should go.

> 
> 
>>> That information can be available in another document and still be used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane.
>> 
>> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830.
>> 
> 
> We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and easier to read.


> 
> 
> [snip]
>> 
>>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear.
>>>> 
>>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else. 
>>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details.
>> 
>> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I’m not going to change it.
>> 
> 
> Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert.

Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

>> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don’t want to repeat text as you suggested above.
>> 
> 
> The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the text again to make sure nothing has been lost.

Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

> As I suggested in first mail: 
> 
> We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce, 
> 
> We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5,  RLOC-Probing

Sorry, I can’t follow these references.

Dino