[lisp] Deadline for proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt is Friday Sep 4th

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Just a friendly reminder that the proposed changes to draft-ietf- 
lisp-04.txt is this Friday September 4th.

Thank you to all who have sent us comments last week. For those of you  
who have not reviewed the diffs yet, you can look at the updated html  
diff file enclosed.

The change-log of the proposed changes is also enclosed. Please note  
there are 6 additional change-log entries at the end reflecting  
comments we received last week.

Thanks a lot,
Dino/Dave/Darrel/Vince

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes planned for draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt:

* How do deal with record count greater than 1 for a Map-Request.  
Damien and
   Joel comment. Joel suggests:

     1) Specify that senders compliant with the current document will
     always set the count to 1, and note that the count is included for
     future extensibility.

     2) Specify what a receiver compliant with the draft should do if it
     receives a request with a count greater than 1. Presumably, it  
should
     send some error back?

* Add Fred Templin in ack section.

* Add Margaret and Sam to the ack section for their great comments.

* Say more about LAGs in the UDP section per Sam Hartman's comment.

* Sam wants to use MAY instead of SHOULD for ignoring checkums on ETR.  
From
   the mailing list:

   You'd need to word it as an ITR MAY send a zero checksum, an ETR MUST
   accept a 0 checksum and MAY ignore the checksum completely.  And of
   course we'd need to confirm that can actually be implemented.  In
   particular, hardware that verifies UDP checksums on receive needs to
   be checked to make sure it permits 0 checksums.

* Margaret wants a reference to http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eubanks-
   chimento-6man-00.txt.

* Fix description in Map-Request section. Where we describe Map-Reply  
Record,
   change "R-bit" to "M-bit".

* Add the mobility bit to Map-Replies. So PTRs don't probe so often  
for MNs
   but often enough to get mapping updates.

* Indicate SHA1 can be used as well for Map-Registers.

* More Fred comments on MTU handling.

* Isidor comment about specing better periodic Map-Registers. Will be  
fixed
   in draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt.

* Margaret's comment on gleaning:

     The current specification does not make it clear how long gleaned  
map
     entries should be retained in the cache, nor does it make it clear
     how/ when they will be validated.  The LISP spec should, at the  
very
     least,  include a (short) default lifetime for gleaned entries,
     require that  they be validated within a short period of time, and
     state that a new  gleaned entry should never overwrite an entry  
that
     was obtained from  the mapping system.   The security  
implications of
     storing "gleaned"  entries should also be explored in detail.

* Add section on RLOC-probing per working group feedback.

* Change "loc-reach-bits" to "loc-status-bits" per comment from Noel.

* Remove SMR-bit from data-plane. Dino prefers to have it in the control
   plane only.

* Change LISP header to allow a "Research Bit" so the Nonce and LSB  
fields
   can be turned off and used for another future purpose. For Luigi et  
al
   versioning convergence.

* Add a N-bit to the data header suggested by Noel. Then the nonce  
field could
   be used when N is not 1.

* Clarify that when E-bit is 0, the nonce field can be an echoed nonce  
or
   a random nonce. Comment from Jesper.

* Indicate when doing data-gleaning that a verifying Map-Request is sent
   to the source-EID of the gleaned data packet so we can avoid map- 
cache
   corruption by a 3rd party. Comment from Pedro.

* Indicate that a verifying Map-Request, for accepting mapping data,  
should be
   sent over the the ALT (or to the EID).

* Reference IPsec RFC 4302. Comment from Sam and Brian Weis.

* Put E-bit in Map-Reply to tell ITRs that the ETR supports echo- 
noncing.
   Comment by Pedro and Dino.

* Jesper made a comment to loosen the language about requiring the  
copy of
   inner TTL to outer TTL since the text to get mixed-AF traceroute to  
work would
   violate the "MUST" clause. Changed from MUST to SHOULD in section  
5.3.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------