Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years 
there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent 
allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend 
the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every 
possible situation.)

Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other 
than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent 
allocation, I don't see much that can be said.

If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that 
after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the 
usual criteria for such requests.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/16/16 6:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Luigi:
>
> Hi!
>
> ...
>>
>>> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
>>> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a
>>> permanent
>>> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How
>>> should
>>> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
>>> successful?
>>>
>>
>> This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a
>> permanent allocation is needed.
>
> I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from there.
>
> I still think there should be some indication of what is success.  Is it
> related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the
> advertisement of those allocations?  The use of those allocation in
> production?  All/none of the above?
>
> IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue or
> not, there should be some criteria to consider.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>