Re: [lisp] RFC 8112

Luigi Iannone <> Tue, 27 February 2018 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C8612702E for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 UKSHxGjG7gfi for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEAE21200B9 for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k9so23967452wre.9 for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+8w8K3xpJtad/YuEbL+rXWFWe7lxeP5OQd13xHpBfXk=; b=C2GT64qpYvWGWY+t9279C0COV98EzDO0TQNkObrvxJYe7+SaHNX5KmhKEYYR3WL7NO FAp4NRgtIQ9lzBeqRUy0ZJNBAN5D13JSK1uent9vVrmR+2Nf+jL+z8u3dhtOzyCCCXmE vatqVYTPuWnX9GoJV9wQxs7vPiYpkvcHsUDxmXS819AUwpUHki392EkvsMVHXiHwzaQm b6ZkmH7kMWHJEmt8l6Oh2BSMohfZEKJAWfFIUlX5Dj9yJqfshmZF8BH3Xh5ZN+alHi/e /rDgcw+LT+AGME4itoAyvVWqELvLK7Zq7rcFnBP9N1JJTVu/IrSPwEYXkiEZ8142VZ7/ XIyA==
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=+8w8K3xpJtad/YuEbL+rXWFWe7lxeP5OQd13xHpBfXk=; b=R1Mk3jbqFstJiGM29ErFeYk3tpc73qZRYCvWonwUHXL+vJAPRT6TKq1URB4bq45rLN z7mftKhpNhFETaJIxR/mjacpazkgO2Qj7v0E9gs49NY+BXH3g6ZhCJcsTAfRS+sZvCrY 843jy9r8rAganxWc8Nqxm6FHdIOLwnRVg+Z2i1M3lZEQmGnCHNoxO3Io8on+sh0fpv+K yAuU7jE5Mk3rUZKE36X6YAH7QOSxaEZyNFgdHEdsxPgSHnjn1WFGt6JHDz30SH8yttSx 9N5F9bdtA4R1ahsLB/+qF7TZGvb1nyoy9+iiG6xGiR9ZSBkwxMHHo8gFVmciYU6q+1Y8 4fYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCyVrowfBLI7k7cClVI6hFJ6X46/2U4+4UXY7J4Wvmg4HHolDnc gAyEBHhB8Kd1A2YGk2fsP3crd8jaHX8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227zpH+P9Llwqe/CIp1oaj4zkpfK3SU/9ydTk95LKTN0bl6yqNdOuI8FwiDdmF5GqbXTLR8Qqw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 64mr11438178wrs.76.1519721486146; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:b4d2:1645:baf7:78f7? ([2001:660:330f:a4:b4d2:1645:baf7:78f7]) by with ESMTPSA id d8sm64584wmd.20.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Luigi Iannone <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:51:23 +0100
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <>, " list" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] RFC 8112
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Feb 2018 08:51:30 -0000

> On 23 Feb 2018, at 19:39, Dino Farinacci <> wrote:
> It doesn’t make sense. As far as I can tell, RIG went through the same subittal and review process. I certainly believe it was a product of the working group.
> Can you tell me why it didn’t go through IETF last call?

It did not go through IETF last call because the authors (including you) asked to move it forward as individual submission. 

As such the process for its publication (as outlined in RFC4846) does not include any last call.

In other words there was no formal consensus on the document hence it cannot be considered a WG document.

I don’t think we can put the document in the WG page (despite being certainly an important piece of work) 



> Dino
>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Joel Halpern Direct <> wrote:
>> No, I do not think it is appropriate to put it in the list (not sure if I can).
>> LIG was produced as an Informational RFC by the LISP working group.  it is a WG product.
>> RFC 8112 was NOT produced by the LISP working group.  It had been on our plate, and then was taken for publication to the Independent Stream. Which is fine.  (Luigi and I were asked if this was a problem.)  But that means it was not a working group product, did not go through IETF last call, and was not approved by the IESG.  Formally, it is a product of the listed authors.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> On 2/23/18 1:11 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> I don’t understand why its different than lig. Can you put it in the list?
>>> Dino
>>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
>>>> It is not listed because it is not a working group product.  It is an Independent Stream document from the authors.  (I agree it is a useful document, but that is not whta that list is about.)
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>> On 2/23/18 12:34 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>> Chairs, can you check why RFC 8112 is not listed in the RFC list in
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Dino
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lisp mailing list