Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 27 August 2018 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 BAEE4130DD3; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 3ThuNTr3EDRk; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E49B130E16; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECD07164B1C; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nd_PdNleDA33; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (173-166-5-69-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.69]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9470B7164B0F; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1CF46C36-C1CF-477E-95BD-21ACC4FBAE14@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:19:01 -0400
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis.all@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B73BD6D0-D3FF-4D3B-97C8-1B4BC756CD15@sobco.com>
References: <6515577E-31A8-45DC-90DA-59C43817EAB7@sobco.com> <D7DCB6AE-D9AA-48E9-8D5C-FA7E7169E155@gmail.com> <600E5518-F884-42DA-80F2-4CF650C6BA60@sobco.com> <F5DF64DA-7974-456A-AC57-A25D160F253A@gmail.com> <4BAEBA48-2435-4B26-9A45-493A259E6250@sobco.com> <75299534-B274-40F4-AACB-F72105B2E248@gmail.com> <FE16C3DB-4B94-4B15-A377-0137F2A3F044@sobco.com> <EAC5E3BA-AFF7-4187-96C3-72B82CF5DAE0@gmail.com> <9BE375D7-50E1-4FF1-B59C-93C203CFBDD0@gmail.com> <9E88630B-404F-4E0D-8CE5-5DD602A59D25@sobco.com> <1F27055C-152D-432B-B372-B79739561D92@gmail.com> <91383BDF-57ED-4F7A-A868-ABF0244187CE@sobco.com> <3BE641EB-F095-4271-8C17-1945362526FF@gmail.com> <90D8DA6D-EE44-45CE-8FCC-950C770CF568@sobco.com> <1CF46C36-C1CF-477E-95BD-21ACC4FBAE14@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/g36MLFFqxBSlT4dVQVSNfrQC6jk>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 21:19:06 -0000

wfm

Scott


> On Aug 27, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Diffs enclosed.
> 
> Dino
> 
> <rfcdiff.html>
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> thanks!
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Right - we moved the control-plane to 6833bis. I’ll mention that in changes section. 
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2018, at 12:07 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> a quick look at the ToC of the ID & of RFC 6830 show a lot of things missing (the doc is a lot
>>>> shorter) - it might be useful to say something about that in the changes since section
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>> 
>