IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 17 February 2016 09:19 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 4318E1B378A for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 crHz-PPtcGuz for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0441B3787 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g62so18540287wme.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VWnR+r0k3IdT7h/8GhIe+a/3y8VRR9TnMH2lGNrIusw=; b=RXANqlejZk0gEvyv9vPlASp4Vwsv38cauHxrfGalTKtb+QYYo32qhRLlq3k9iYSshq Kxs3MUG/qkqDbvZM7JyznfebbMIAHNhEx0cLdfqyi1U0cVzdH8V0uwaGBEGzdvaRZ8/g FC5fCqGDETaCQBoe9wUPiEqy7CGeBzwX+86Dt4H+xQLKCp+MAGmO3/vDtPv7wVY+bBZr zbIEWeGUPHvez31apC0SwQu+ZA1b/AQ8gNs0d2cnJvCwA7ISW/PJBMItNDqcaTZ8K3VO 69vnFgDpo+/jC38ri6Dw4xadQ+hBbaxTj41nR8unMcgCvMkVix5amPJu8O8H4XbfcOpt hJVQ==
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=VWnR+r0k3IdT7h/8GhIe+a/3y8VRR9TnMH2lGNrIusw=; b=Q2ixQuB8o1YnZwAhgZuTmJPoE7sJQo+2AzRikXDgqA6qWYBEODcND43o+RV+Onp3Nr VmfkfPRphqMLoqqi6uakYeHzmYHRVwd0JuKM1Yhx6L6BKekdYEOGIoPALr/zJHPHhJK2 H2nmccdVgHKSNSuYB4DfcRAIpCk62Cl5OII9SDnCARust4K0sLxXYWQnL/3ON4TdIc55 vDsutIoPN1CifAnfyD8I1mMzQlyh504VUXGPf9v9aaZi6OWszqOyEgTVxXaf4dW2TFaz +eo9XlDY4v+ajAbiGdLnuZvLGf1+vdQ0HQ+kAD1Y3j81ckGO1Cb1RXgUshUg/piqj7gs 5mvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORshA3K2+wQ0HIs9igBkaSJhTtQqGUXNZrot4cFKzfbL20Ywby/oO3GUPV4Owv9wQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.23.5 with SMTP id 5mr2432095wmx.82.1455700790261; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:8:10:8500:e8cb:6fb3:e2ff:3ca8? ([2003:8:10:8500:e8cb:6fb3:e2ff:3ca8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pd1sm491043wjb.19.2016.02.17.01.19.47 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <D2E90B2F.110B96%aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:19:46 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0CA5BA4A-0EBC-4220-8A6F-9006F5B6C72C@gigix.net>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net> <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com> <56C396A6.1080506@joelhalpern.com> <D2E90B2F.110B96%aretana@cisco.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/toLOuxMwoOsi5j_iNnD1i1Q8-ec>
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 09:19:54 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
> "sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
> if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?
> 
> At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
> experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

I am a bit lost in what should the process be.

If it is the IESG that has to take a decision in 3 years, is it up to the authors/WG to write how the IESG has to decide? 
I am not sure I follow this reasoning.
Shouldn’t the IESG decide what are the criteria? 

Any guidance is welcome
Thanks

Luigi

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email