Subject: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22...

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:28:46 -0400

Sam just asked me a question about this situation that made it clear  
that he didn't know where I stand on Vince's changes vs. additional  
changes to address issue #22, so I thought I should clarify that...

I proposed that we open a new issue #NN:  Encapsulated Control and  
Data Packets Shouldn't Use the Same Port. I think that is clearly a  
problem, and that Vince's proposal fixes it.  Although I prefer Joel's  
proposal because it resolves both issues #NN and #22, I don't have any  
major objection to Vince's proposal. So, I wouldn't object to  
including Vince's proposal in -05 and closing issue #NN.

I believe that Vince's proposal is related to, but does not actually  
address, issue #22.  This issue could be resolved by adopting Joel's  
proposal, or by other means.  So, if we include Vince's proposal in  
-05, then issue #22 should remain open and be resolved (however we end  
up deciding to resolve it) before we send the draft to the IESG for  
publication.

I am a little bit disturbed by adding a message type (Encapsulated  
Message) that we may just end-up removing later if the encapsulation  
goes away, but I don't consider that to be a blocking issue.

Margaret

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:37:03 -0700

Thanks Margaret for being open minded.

I hope we can reach consensus on #NN.

As for what you are distributed about, that encapsulation could be  
used if the MR was encapsulating for Joel's proposal.

Dino

On Sep 24, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> problem, and that Vince's proposal fixes it.  Although I prefer  
> Joel's proposal because it resolves both issues #NN and #22, I don't  
> have any major objection to Vince's proposal. So, I wouldn't object  
> to including Vince's proposal in -05 and closing issue #NN.
>
> -05, then issue #22 should remain open and be resolved (however we  
> end up deciding to resolve it) before we send the draft to the IESG  
> for publication.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:03:02 -0400

>>>>> "Dino" == Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dino> Thanks Margaret for being open minded.
    Dino> I hope we can reach consensus on #NN.

I think we've reached rough consensus on #nn assuming it gets opened.
I seem to be the only one with an objection.