Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

Dino Farinacci <> Tue, 11 September 2018 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23066130DE5 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x2pKusEXkr3v for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1708130DDE for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l202-v6so50043431oig.7 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e7TGgVNgT3fIsr/rqcyL3XUNOSVELWTDbZebMpuNoMk=; b=kkDYHqYEeMy9WwG416zUEjP8LRKHUiDq9CKAi3+KA5DwjTELlGVl5eL2+CKOtCpXNS STky7q7eJj3tX8cGjm3ybJuhDppSYdEpXgqZICAafcT6uXHImABDaroBQg1nT9ZQxpBw lRQt1fEbWC4nkMT/WyqSU/i73jGB7LJwEubdjYz2ZXYcxB1hQ9Eh5up8kT71qm3uO6eF RG2sp+npFWtagspG4m6VchbeFbzLB5ABBBz7pblj97WdJLb23IaBdlyI7d1MM6f4T8/+ VodBV4KJTSL/4PZFVi57JaFq61uqkDao+f1brFVBwXVDq81D5p6X6VwKPHRAgb4XXBgv txXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e7TGgVNgT3fIsr/rqcyL3XUNOSVELWTDbZebMpuNoMk=; b=Qofe95tMV+sty1gRU9Nk3CgWAglZfkY8ASd9MA7+kTkrXXdKOTgjbe6uvCh5SpqYA3 hHYYwEjAerNvO1wr7NZw+EMBu2021SBD8WLtqa7WRRMQ6XT6gEDfNP4+twZRPel88GLJ 9MZPy0+weCEjLhwUNsOIy7UFOL0LL1okXire4IThqhj0fUpg36M1l3MRQwvWAjnLqGB9 b0beu8rcM0i4Xgwd0CDQfKGI5lIYL++4ADK/C0H2glr4V3cvfSRJdAEEz4g1R+CMuPcF pdJgsK0ASp7yqXR8RoZJl2MoSDUPWXsqpICmvd7/T7st3Mqa323KZ9a0vT1Yoqov6DiF 4mRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51C2Vfiivf+hkDIW2lrBqoKqsnhiSihCPZ5xNJ3qDKQKqYiy5tLY 9kv7RUsaHPSOn08CL82DNPM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdb75nOMNxD/pl2p5auVXvv5TOQFcvBg7fv45yHCCrdmPuUTU1Yy1Fqr17jILumzTppb9mKiiA==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1112:: with SMTP id 18-v6mr30419701oir.79.1536700425946; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p7-v6sm25228886oif.35.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:13:43 -0700
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, " list" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 21:13:48 -0000

> I don’t see lisp-sec as essential to implementing lisp-intro. I don’t know why it was listed as normative? To me, it is providing additional information.

I agree LISP-SEC is additional information for an introductory document. You bring up a good point.

> If the working group agrees, I can check with the RFC-Editor if can move lisp-security to informative. I think the change will only need author and AD approval. Does anyone have any concerns? Or is lisp-security “almost done” and should continue to wait?

I agree with your proposal. But have another question. If we update the lisp-intro to move this reference to Informative, do you at the same time change all occurences of 6830/6833 to the bis document equivalents or do you want to push lisp-intro through?

I would say go for the latter since the information in 6830/6833 has not changed when shuffling sections around into 6830bis/6833bis. So Albert, the information in RFC6830 is not obsoleted but the document may be.

What do you think?