Subject: Re: [lisp] #16: Map versioning discussion

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:41:42 -0000

#16: Map versioning discussion
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter:  hartmans-ietf@…        |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical              |       Status:  closed         
Priority:  major                  |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                      |   Resolution:  fixed          
Keywords:                         |  
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by hartmans-ietf@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 From an October 23 message from Sam Hartman to the list:

 The major intent in my mind when opening issue #16 was to figure out
 if we had consensus behind text in LISP 04.  (We did not and ended up
 removing the r-bit).
 The chairs' consensus call on the issue is attached below.

 >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.

 So, I think the next step is to update the draft and to when you are
 ready to ask the WG if it is interested in adopting the work.  We'd
 want to have discussion on the list and probably discussion in a
 face-to-face meeting.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/16#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues