[lisp] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 27 September 2018 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D306E130E86; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, lisp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.84.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153805487385.26290.14227373548139794294.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:27:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/hHJeE5QoF3hi0gCCkawJv2Xiw6U>
Subject: [lisp] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:27:54 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


In the thread with the Gen-ART reviewer, the rationale that was given for
advancing this document now even though rfc6834bis is nascent was:

"We do not expect big changes in any bis document, since they are just the PS
version of deployed technology."

This seems somewhat less likely given the feedback received on the LISP
documents on the telechat this week, so I'd like to discuss whether it really
makes sense to advance this one now given its normative dependencies on 6834bis
and 6830bis.