Subject: Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:28:13 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

    > I'm still waiting for feedback on the SMR bit being removed from the
    > data plane. I don't think there has been any stated support for this on
    > the list. I made a call in the form of an issue and have seen no
    > responses.

I conducted an extensive search through the last couple of months of email to
see what I could find out about this issue. It seems to be a recent thing,
since I see on August 10th private email from Dino which talks about
(paraphrased) 'not sure whether we are keeping the SMR bit in the data
header'.

Basically, only two messages to the list since around then mention the issue
itself (and a number more as a meta-issue, i.e. about whether it has been
finalized, i.e. not about the issue itself). Both of the ones which mention it
direct mention it prominently. The first, from Dino:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg01119.html

listed it up top, in the very first paragraph. The second, from you:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg01246.html

had it as the only issue, and received no responses at all.

In addition, the flags field in the user-data header (which is where the SMR
bit in question was) has been discussed _extensively_, including this
consensus call from you:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg01294.html

and the extremely long thread starting here:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg01197.html

and nobody mentioned the missing SMR bit.

To me, this would seem adequate to show that everyone is happy with getting
rid of the data-plane bit (on several occasions the question has been asked
directly; and with all the discussion of the flags field, if anyone who is
thinking about LISP to any considerable degree was unaware that bit was gone,
I would be stunned). If anyone had a problem surely at least _one message_
would have been sent about it.

Yes, we didn't get a flood of 'yes that's OK' messages, but in general in the
IETF 'silence betokens consent' - how many Last Calls on the main IETF list
generate no responses at all, without anyone concluding that that's not
acceptable?

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm fine with this change.

	Noel

---

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:42:12 -1000

> Yes, we didn't get a flood of 'yes that's OK' messages, but in  

Its OK with me.
Delete the SMR bit.