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

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,


se comments inline.

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:40, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 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.