Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I'll post a new version without such sections shortly.

I volunteer to help writing the OAM document.

Albert

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
> >>>
> >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement
> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
> >>>
> >>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this
> text will go.
> >>
> >> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
> >
> > Nobody wants to lose valuable text.
>
> Glad you feel that way.
>
> >
> >> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to
> lose it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
> >
> > That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM
> document, without any change in the text.
> > Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
> > This is an half an hour task.
>
> But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the
> co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.
>
> So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.
>
> >
> >>
> >> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t
> make any change.
> >
> > Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
> > If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task.
> Authorship will be anyway preserved.
>
>
> Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of
> how EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are
> already documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t
> go in an OAM document.
>
> Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the
> network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the
> Deployment RFC.
>
> Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an
> OAM document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are
> other OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM
> document.
>
> This will not take 1/2 hour.
>
> And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We
> have already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane
> text. We achieved that goal from the charter.
>
> Dino
>
>