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

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 17 February 2016 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FABA1B2F0C; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.906
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVGQnRvZ_n-9; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095CA1ABC10; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:56:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2016 08:56:51 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1H8uohf017315; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:56:50 GMT
To: "" <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>, "Joel M. Halpern" <>, Luigi Iannone <>
References: <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AlrnlSLS4OmITpXlpuHxkHAudfe0admLK"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:56:59 -0000

Good morning, Joel.

On 2/17/16 12:53 AM, 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.