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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Tue, 16 February 2016 10:33 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 316C01B2C1A for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:09 -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 jNOMO_VaocsN for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 001F11B2C2D for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g62so145635797wme.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:04 -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=CYF3mkPo5JyyDLtuAbTdFq5eIMZ/3BdnK4B3eWrc7V0=; b=cPwxpOtl8f2xXxmlEEygt6f+QsllcaA0+9dcVK1SkWKhLXhBCuH2xWKf0gGENg/sIJ pIbP5xqx49NccUb8VIjcDU/TVNNjG7AORrvmws5OP4qs+xDVWQg3pQb+EV1G9FR0tgzR Dkfi0ZlSx6eqweNAcSvF3yeJOPvvCYJ5Nva8fe+nKxBs7t6RG0azZNXZmqQUhiabeH1n T96tyvOFd2oxOn6Mi1PAClMnVHCDzYBT9FcdInNTxQeJv3YYfh090BRuAv4YxhFtXn6s pLZUL/mBTewVe677KSlPAbIG7f7FnsFRNv7J1/+VxpANKHeoh8Q7VAehETp30Xxp9VKA Ns3w==
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=CYF3mkPo5JyyDLtuAbTdFq5eIMZ/3BdnK4B3eWrc7V0=; b=RD05fLlgdUIbqxbb7Q9MSprTjoIspim/l2K51n7S4k+CrIh8uTHoi7wWDweRvK7Gtx uTpmhTO3JKTs890cmM1tkPPkmvBYzN7NL8FvP8TX04pqjLOn3gXahNbAhVWR9MSRb222 ILfD73Pke9c6lte8MyUr12XU7dyZ04h5oHAAMQVJKzrqStU8U9klEVVZvAD1OTdHgOjA 4I/siBTlplbBiqTuubuiVhx52yHl7IuqGDyvM4o6ft2sYUFqr2Br6rbGdGeT45J/QB43 rnL5FN5LEcEdrrN6QGqFgm5BJZLJVv8EUMmWzZNYdCIF9+iTvqPrZutjmAEBNL06PVd/ Fvxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTHtjr77CDmQr+5OrMcCL4y9m1MA1b84QP+Ttwht1Zo3iI6eGFsqWYr116x+73tFA==
X-Received: by 10.194.76.211 with SMTP id m19mr25563949wjw.113.1455618783591; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:8:10:8500:1df9:ebef:5c5:4a5a? ([2003:8:10:8500:1df9:ebef:5c5:4a5a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q75sm20033218wmd.6.2016.02.16.02.33.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:33:02 -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: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:33:02 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/vlNIaXXQ7Jy7glpbPw5Unw8l2tE>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:33:09 -0000

Hi Alvaro,


se comments inline.

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:40, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This document is clearly requesting the assignment of LISP EID space for
> an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have
> missed the discussion in the archive.]
> 

As I replied for the management document, certainly we can go for experimental.



> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a permanent
> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How should
> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
> successful?
> 

This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a permanent allocation is needed.



> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> An early allocation was made in October/2015.  The values should be
> included in the document.

Right. The allocation has been granted after the -12 has been published.
We will include the values in the -13 version.

> 
> The dates mentioned assumed a start date of December/2015, but the
> document isn't getting approved until now — is there a need to change the
> dates?  Just wondering — part of it is that I'm not sure if RIPE has
> already started allocating addresses or not.
> 

We can easily shift all the timing to start at 2016.


> Please expand ROA and put in a reference.
> 
> 

Thanks. Will do.

ciao

L.