Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Your description matches my understanding, what I was trying to say, and 
what I think the draft does.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/8/14, 3:38 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought that after the last round of discussion on this topic we had come to the
> point where the WG specified the technical characteristics of the registry
> that would be appropriate for support of this experiment, and the IESG and IAB
> would direct the IANA as appropriate to operate a registry that was consistent
> with this.
>
> I had also thought that in this dialogue between the IESG, IAB and the IANA, the
> RIRs may well be in a position to provide registry support that would be entirely
> consistent with the technical requirements to support this experiment.
>
> So from that perspective I had thought that this draft was clear in intent
> and suitable to support the experiment.
>
>
> regards,
>
>     Geoff
>
>
> On 9 Oct 2014, at 5:51 am, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> It would seem to me to be rather odd to spend time working out an agreement for what we want to do with a permanent allocation.  We are defining the rules for the experimental allocation.
>>
>> Is there a specific text change that would make that clear enough to alleviate your concern?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 10/8/14, 2:49 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
>>> Hello Joel,
>>>
>>>> The document is very clear that any potential transition to permanent
>>>> allocation would have to be discussed and coordianted with multiple
>>>> parties, including the RIRs.
>>>
>>> Correct, the document is saying this. Maybe I have a different idea of "very
>>> clear" though, all it says there must be a discussion.
>>> I would prefer a clear statement that these policies are ending either when
>>> the EID block experiment ends (obvious) or when the EID block turns into
>>> something permanent.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Equally, until such time as a permanent allocation is made, the document is
>>>> not declaring the RIRs to be "the " allocation authority.
>>>
>>> Agree - and I'm not making such a statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the RIRs can
>>>> and wish to engage in LISP EID allocation in accordance with the policy,
>>>> they can.  But the document does not promise the role to them.
>>>
>>> If the document deviates from how RIRs operate then the document should not
>>> be valid at the point any LISP EID blocks becomes permanent. My opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It may, or may not, make sesen if and when we do a permanent allocation to
>>>> specify a role for the RIRs.  That however will be negotiated then.
>>>
>>> This "may or may not" is the vagueness I mentioned and why I express my lack
>>> of comfort with the document.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me word it differently: the EID block as a sandbox for a large-scale,
>>> real-life experiment to learn how LISP becomes (or is already)
>>> production-ready for the Internet - great idea. Beyond that I don't see a
>>> need for anything special or different for LISP and we have working
>>> procedures how to allocate/assign address space. This is also the promise,
>>> that LISP is blending in.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards, Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/14, 2:15 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
>>>>> Hello Joel, authors and lisp list,
>>>>>
>>>>> while I think the document is overall reasonably written it has one
>>>>> problem:
>>>>> it's bound to an proposed EID address block that has no guaranteed end of
>>>>> life.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this experiment would clearly terminate after 3+3 years then I would say
>>>>> it's good to go. It's not the way the RIRs have written their documents
>>>>> but I
>>>>> think that's okay for a experiment and a 6 year time frame. But the
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> allow the requested /32 EID block to be turned into something permanently.
>>>>> For a permanent EID block it's reasonable to assume the RIRs deal with the
>>>>> allocation/assignment work ([1]) and then the document would need more
>>>>> alignment with RIR policy documents. A simple example would be the
>>>>> language,
>>>>> "allocation" is used throughout while "assignment" is only mentioned in the
>>>>> Introduction. I checked both ARIN and RIPE and it's clearly defined there.
>>>>> It's also going too far in telling IANA to not have a regional policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So in short (and in all honesty): not feeling comfortable with the document
>>>>> in the context of a potential permanent impact of the document.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Marc
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]: if the proposal is to have finally an additional authority beside the
>>>>> RIRs for address allocation then I would reject the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:14:16 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The work on the draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02 seems done and the
>>>>>> authors requested a work group last call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email starts a 14 day WG last call, to end CoB PDT October 22, 2014.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find the document here:
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review this WG document.  Let the working group know if you agree
>>>>>> that it is ready for handing to the AD, or if you see issues with it. If
>>>>>> you see issues, please be as specific as possible about the problems, and
>>>>>> if possible suggest text to resolve them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>