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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:31:55 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

    > I proposed that we open a new issue #NN: Encapsulated Control and
    > Data Packets Shouldn't Use the Same Port.

I think there's a general sense that this is a good idea?

Actually, I would suggest that there are three separate-but-related issues
here:

i - Encapsulated control packets on the data port
ii - Use of a group EID as the destination IP address
iii - Encapsulation of Map-Request packets on the ITR-> and ->ETR hops

Re-reading #22 again, the text starts out by saying "Two aspects of the MS
protocol require that an ETR consume packets not addressed to it." So that
doesn't seem to cover iii).

I think it might help to have three separate issues; sorry if this seems
excessive, but this is all so crazy by now, I think the smaller the
pieces, the better.

Also, I gather from various offline conversations that both ii) and iii)
_are_ a problem for some now, _but_ that there are internal workarounds
(albeit kludgy) for them both. Which means there's nothing in any of the
other two which people just _cannot_ work around, if I'm understanding
things correctly?

So is it OK to just do those kludges for the moment, as interim fixes, and
later we'll come back and look at the larger issues in a measured, careful
way?

    > 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.

Good, that's what I think makes the most sense. Hopefully, once we're sure
there won't be a problem with the interim fix for port number thing causing us
to never come back to the others (and that 'once we're sure' could be right
away, as soon as everyone digests the latest round of email), we can go right
ahead and, as suggested above, "includ[e your] proposal in -05 and clos[e the
port] issue".

    > 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.

Exactly; at some point down the road, when we have time to ponder it. Is
this OK with everyone?

	Noel

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:50:05 -0400

Hi Noel,

> excessive, but this is all so crazy by now, I think the smaller the

I agree.  We should open these three issues separately.

I think I also agree with the rest of your reasoning, with the  
assumption that "when we have time to ponder" the other two issues  
will be before we send the RFC for publication.

Margaret