Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

> On 9 Jan 2018, at 19:00, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Brief reply.
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there.
>>>> 
>>>> Doesn’t make sense to me. That is not a reason. 
>>> 
>>> It is a reason, maybe one you don’t like, but it is a reason.
>>> 
>> 
>> The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that does not belong to the data-plane. 
> 
> The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage the elements in the map-cache.

You just mixed up data-plane and control plane, hence, would be better move the OAM text


> It’s the only place it should go.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> That information can be available in another document and still be used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane.
>>> 
>>> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830.
>>> 
>> 
>> We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and easier to read.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> [snip]
>>> 
>>>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else. 
>>>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details.
>>> 
>>> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I’m not going to change it.
>>> 
>> 
>> Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert.
> 
> Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

Please read reply to Albert.


> 
>>> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don’t want to repeat text as you suggested above.
>>> 
>> 
>> The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the text again to make sure nothing has been lost.
> 
> Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

Please read reply to Albert.

> 
>> As I suggested in first mail: 
>> 
>> We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce, 
>> 
>> We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5,  RLOC-Probing
> 
> Sorry, I can’t follow these references.

Please read reply to Albert and my original review.

Thanks

L.



> 
> Dino
>