Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]

Yes, a new version can be posted.

Brian

On 2/13/15 12:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Given that Brian has signed off on the current version, and that this is
> explicitly on the IESG agenda, I would like Brian's confirmation that
> posting a new version is acceptable (it seems like a good idea to me.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 2/13/15 8:51 AM, Black, David wrote:
>> Yes.  I think we've discussed and reached conclusions on everything
>> except whether
>> to add text on the IPv6 UDP zero checksum topic.  Could I suggest
>> submission of
>> a -12 version of the draft that captures everything that's been
>> discussed/resolved?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --David
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:38 AM
>>> To: Black, David
>>> Cc: Dino Farinacci; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos;
>>> Damien
>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>> [B]
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same
>>>> output as
>>> its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
>>>> The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same"
>>>> and that
>>> needs to be corrected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent progress thanks.
>>>
>>> So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer
>>> multicast
>>> groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the
>>> underlay
>>> provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay.
>>>
>>> Did I get it right?
>>>
>>> L.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --David
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
>>>>> To: Black, David
>>>>> Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert
>>>>> Cabellos; Damien
>>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of
>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
>>>>>
>>>>> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control
>>>>> overlay's
>>> group
>>>>> address allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dino
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely
>>>>>> clear
>>> that
>>>>>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that
>>>>>> mapping
>>>>>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
>>>>>>> To: Luigi Iannone
>>>>>>> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos;
>>> Damien
>>>>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> G-EID     =>  the EID multicast group G
>>>>>>>> G-RLOC =>  the RLOC multicast group G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP
>>> multicast
>>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dino
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>

Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]

Attachment: signature.asc