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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 17 February 2016 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 6FABA1B2F0C; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 dVGQnRvZ_n-9; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095CA1ABC10; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3789; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455699413; x=1456909013; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=PGOg63l0zGRdaNCKvOmH8AyHgf2CFnfiGAxxOisZTPE=; b=nEPbnXyZDT8FbeCJEe/t8wK1Z2S22D9JpvdbxRMGiEYN51hLc4p1dYbd /EdGtm8soiSu0+U2iA/qc0sPe4ktoi1EyORlJYFybv/lUqVRmqS6HkYpz xyShsDecVrFP8DwHgFwieuiF5uc/F4JFmRYGwr8ptVPi5Anvsp6BmqIGd k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,459,1449532800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="635547612"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2016 08:56:51 +0000
Received: from [10.61.161.180] ([10.61.161.180]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1H8uohf017315; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:56:50 GMT
To: "jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
References: <50sus3sgbqr0yhw275dcc7fl.1455666785804@email.android.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56C435D1.7020708@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:56:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50sus3sgbqr0yhw275dcc7fl.1455666785804@email.android.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AlrnlSLS4OmITpXlpuHxkHAudfe0admLK"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lMfn_whtQX6go2q7qUpdKGyn4cs>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <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: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:56:59 -0000

Good morning, Joel.

On 2/17/16 12:53 AM, jmh.direct wrote:
> I don't think the future IESG would appreciate it if we told them that
> they must allocate if condition X is met.  Just as the initial request
> for a permanent code point was a judgment xall, so will the future
> reqest.  In fact, to write the conditions, we would have to copy text
> from a number of RFCS and then add specifics to the judgement calls
> those prescribe.  That does not sound like the right thing to do.
>

I did not read Alvaro's message that way, but perhaps Alvaro could
clarify.  I viewed his message more as a question.  is the experiment
successful based on the number of allocations or based on what has been
done with those allocations?  Maybe both.  I will admit, I would find
quantifying that somewhat challenging.  I would imagine that future
allocations/delegations would require one or more RFCs.

Eliot