Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Tue, 21 October 2014 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325F11A03F9 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VW9gTXf-6xFY for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7A101A03AA for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r20so1395895wiv.11 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=XWGrgflJ0zj6lGHGHG2UbT+Ap/P2EL4QGCbaX3LQMZE=; b=LCZ1fYq7eGUCHNYj/P7cTl7HazbJ2xszcCIQetxyL1ST+/iOKW+B70cXo35ZKZf9+n zwY/L6rPI2rlBypwG+5xVrSF321S4/1XkcgACOV/z3zvtJNMf9LXOQgeiVSR3WvMdN+W HE/hIxH8QakQIu4WznQQIngxHkKJTXY+Y2JgwtmfVuhVzHtlZ+LEy+KcZZlfx1+iPOr/ 5NGJHRuqEZJmy/lmA6/rfz6LJ/o4VFqBqeJZ4ibPG5GSkYjnnf4RPyqDV3zG53nIeUxA DZdAR6M8NuOo6VD+jGbNGLjw5iywBmKJnb8223S1YLrDSVU4suXLJ2u6L+I+DIud3l3k BWVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvSs//lQgQ+p2JRptoQERNBl+ut0FziQM/5ku/mnQ74TgltJgXBRcrhzqqyGkw3zuGW8ED
X-Received: by 10.180.100.106 with SMTP id ex10mr28337208wib.63.1413888086726; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:bdfb:c02d:7f9e:e96f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:bdfb:c02d:7f9e:e96f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ny6sm12650099wic.22.2014.10.21.03.41.25 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <12CAF59F-C204-4AC2-849B-D2F3B9A97F03@apnic.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:41:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F0AE92C5-48B8-4087-8F94-EA8B88125B24@gigix.net>
References: <543538A8.30405@joelhalpern.com> <20141008111526504441.351ecc0f@sniff.de> <54358282.30905@joelhalpern.com> <20141008114923108851.765e002a@sniff.de> <543587CA.5070105@joelhalpern.com> <20141008134017695204.f47759dc@sniff.de> <81F32DC0-F062-4303-8C54-6E93B2612785@gigix.net> <12CAF59F-C204-4AC2-849B-D2F3B9A97F03@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/kaRjbzCPZgU3kcNGkQYcJAeezm0
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:41:32 -0000

Hi Geoff,

thanks for the thorough review (as usual from you ;-) ).

Due to comments from you and Marc the authors think would be better to stop the Last Call now. Update the document and restart it later.

The comments you both provided do not change the nature of the document, they are mostly wording. 
Yet, they are numerous, hence better to write them down before going any further otherwise confusion will reign.

Thanks

Luigi

 

> On 13 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> I also said that I had comments in section 6.
> 
> The comment relates to sections a and b of item 3 of the registration template - the prefix size.
> 
> The lack of guidance on specific prefix allocations in both the accompanying eid-block draft and this draft probably should be addressed. What we want is a balance between ease of access and the lack of imposition bureaucratic registry evaluation procedures and some statement of the expectation of restraint to allow all potential experimenters access to a registration in this block. 
> 
> One possible approach would be to state a default allocation size, and might I suggest that a /56 is an appropriate balance between utility and convenience and the considerations of the initial scale of this experiment. If the registrant is seeking a default size allocation (or smaller) then the template should note that no "rationale" would be necessary.
> 
> Another option (which I prefer) is to state that it is possible to request allocations of between a /64 to a /48, and that while the rationale would not be formally assessed by the registry, any allocation of larger than a /56 would require a rationale text, and this text would be part of the published registration. i.e. "no questions asked and no explanations given for a registration of a prefix of a /64 through to a /56, and an explanation would need to be provided for larger prefixes, and this explanation would be published (i.e. the justification becomes a justification to the other participants in the experiment as to why this particular participant believes that they require a larger prefix, rather than a justification to the registry operator) This would mean that the registry function is kept simple, presumably cheap (i.e. free) and accessible to experimenters of most shapes and sizes.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that the experiment details (section 4) are necessarily part of the registration process. 
> 
> here's an amended section 6 that incorporates these comments.
> 
> 
> 
> EID Prefix Registration template
> 
> Note that all details in this registration become part of the registry, and will be published in the LISP EID Prefix Registry
> 
> 1.  Organization (In case of individuals requesting an EID prefix
>       this section can be left blank)
> 
>       (a)  Organization Name
> 
>       (b)  Organization Address
> 
>       (c)  Organization Phone
> 
>   2.  Contact Person (Mandatory)
> 
>       (a)  Name
> 
>       (b)  Address
> 
>       (c)  Phone
> 
>       (d)  Email
> 
>   3.  EID Prefix Request (Mandatory)
> 
>       (a)  Prefix Size
> 
>       (b)  Prefix Size Rationale
> 
>            Note that Prefixes from a /64 to a /48 may be registered.
>            No rationale text is required for prefix sizes up to and including a
>            /56. The rationale text will be part of the public registry of
>            EID Prefixes.
> 
>            Note that the registration is for a 12 month duration, and must be
>            renewed at the end of this period.
> 
>            Note that the registration will cease upon termination of the
>            experimental LISP EID block allocation.. 
> 
>   4.  Reverse DNS Servers (Optional)
> 
>       (a)  Name server name:
> 
>       (b)  Name server address:
> 
>       (c)  Name server name:
> 
>       (d)  Name server address:
> 
>       (Repeat as necessary)
> 
> 
> 
> thanks,
> 
>  Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
>