Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Hello Dino,
> 
> you mentioned in another email
> 
>> The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create laser 
> focus on
>> control-plane features and scale. The latter being most important.
> 
> I like the ideas in your crypto draft but the data header aspect ... could 
> you change this to a set of requirements your draft has for the data header 
> and drop the explicit header layout instead?
> 
> This would give the draft the focus on the control plane and we keep the 
> details of the data header open.

Well I think that would create an incomplete draft. How about I keep it in and indicate there are other ways to pass a key-id with other encapsulation formats?

Thanks for your comments,
Dino

> 
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:06:47 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> extension of the encap (as well as of the control plane, if needed) to 
>>> address various LISP use cases.
>> 
>> I do like to see a list of requirements that requires changes to LISP 
>> encapsulation. 
>> 
>> LISP-GPE adds no new functionality. NSH can be done without packet 
>> encapsulation from any overlay protocol. 
>> 
>>> In my experience when customers see the benefit of overlays (LISP in my 
>>> case) they tend jump on it... but you know this way better than me :-) 
>>> It's our responsibility as a WG to clear up the confusion about 
>>> encapsulations.
>> 
>> Well adding new encapsulation to the mix doesn't clear up confusion. It 
>> adds to it. 
>> 
>> Dino
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>