Subject: [lisp] #16: map versioning/data plane consensus call

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:00:34 -0400

Darrel and I have discussed the resolution of the map versioning
proposal.

At this point, the WG has not received a request to adopt Luigi's
draft, although he indicated we might receive such a request in the
future.

The chairs believe that we'd need to see somewhat more support for a
specific proposal than we've seen for map versioning to date in order
to adopt that proposal.  If we did receive sufficient support to adopt
something as a WG draft, assigning the flag would be easy.

The question of whether something belongs in the data plane seems to
be all over the map.  Dino has indicated that he wants to see this in
the control plane.  Margaret wants to pursue the path of using short
TTLs and mechanisms to refresh TTLs before they expire.  Luigi of
course wants to see some sort of map versioning in the data plane.  We
definitely don't have consensus today,but we also don't have consensus
to rule things out.  I think we may be revisiting the question of what
belongs in the data plane when we get more data.

Meanwhile I think we can close out this issue as no consensus.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:54:37 +0200

> draft, although he indicated we might receive such a request in the

Before the request, there will be a new draft that, hopefully, will  
trigger new discussion.
Then, depending on the discussion, there could be a request.

> to adopt that proposal.

Yes, and we are not yet there...

>  If we did receive sufficient support to adopt

> course wants to see some sort of map versioning in the data plane.

Looks like we need to select only one solution. Why?
Since the WG is for experimental purposes, we should provide something  
sufficiently open to make experimentations.
Which means that we can include all of the above solutions, just pay  
attention to create something coherent.
Then, operational experience will say which solution is better than  
the other. (Incidentally, I do not believe there _one_ solution that  
fits all, rather it really depends on the context/scenario)

>  We

What about waiting the I issue the new map versioning draft, before re- 
opening the discussion on this subject?

Luigi

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp