Subject: [lisp] #60: Editorial Issues Section 9 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt (from Y. Rekhter's review)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:55:20 -0000

#60: Editorial Issues Section 9 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt (from Y. Rekhter's
review)
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  trivial                        |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Section 9

 This section would benefit from being rewritten to increase clarity.

 Section 9.3

  segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to
  do to make  this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer,
  encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated
  using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no

 Earlier it was claimed that copying the TTL is important for
 correctness reasons. Why is it not important in this case, but is
 important in all other cases?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/60>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:41:36 -0000

Description changed by luigi@…:

> important in all other cases?

New description:

 '''This is part of Comment 40'''

 Section 9

 '''This is Comment 41'''

 Section 9.3

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/60#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues