Subject: [lisp] FW: next steps on draft-ietf-lisp

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:38:01 +0200

Copying the WG list as well on the results of the IESG review of draft-ietf-lisp:

----

We discussed this draft on our IESG call tonight. The draft (as well as other Lisp drafts) has been very carefully reviewed by everyone on the IESG, and I think the feedback is useful. Of course there are a few misunderstandings here and there as well. There are a number of discusses (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp/ballot/), but I think I we see a reasonable way forward.

Here's what I would proposal that we do:

*1) Detailed technical comments:*
- Adrian Farrell's second issue in his Discuss and everything after that
- Sean Turner's Discuss
- Stephen Farrell's Discuss
- Stewart Bryant's Discuss, second item
- Ron Bonica's Discuss, items 5 and 7-8

These seem like valid technical questions that deserve at least an answer and probably in most cases a small document change. Please work on suggested edits for these.

*2) Traffic cases*
- Stewart Bryant's Discuss, first item

Stewart has a good question about non-connection oriented traffic, such as UDP flows or even unidirectional traffic. Unless there is an obvious answer (I think not), you should add this as a case to test in Section 15. Note that Stewart is not asking you to change the protocol in anyway.

*3) Applicability statements, defining the experiment, scope of the proposal*
- Ron Bonica's Discuss, parts 1-4, 6, and 9
- Pete Resnick's Comment
- Adrian Farrell's Discuss, first part

These should be addressed by further work on Section and making it clearer what are the main issues where further testing is needed. Obviously Section 15 is already a good start on that, but my AD colleagues though that it needed some additions. Here's what I think we talked about during the call:

- Section 15 should also include positive aspects to test for (Pete)
- Section 15 should be clearer about the ability to connect the legacy and Lisp Internet. For instance, add this text to the end of the fourth bullet in Section 15: "Without an interworking solution, the Lisp and legacy Internet cannot communicate." (Ron)
- Section 15 should say something about finding out the actual real-world effect on the need to insert more entries to the global routing table, what the impact is TCP sessions by the special treatment of first packets towards a network, the impact of making control plane dependent on data plane (Ron)
- Section 15 should move to a place where it is more visible to readers of the document, right after introduction (Stewart, Adrian)

*4) EID allocation*
- Ralph Droms' Discuss

Ralph and few other ADs have asked about EID allocation procedures, and think that some of the text in the drafts are not giving the full picture. The suggestion that we talked about in the call was to take the EID allocation discussion out from draft-ietf-lisp-alt:

    "EID-prefixes are expected to be allocated to a LISP site by Internet Registries"

and discuss it only in draft-ietf-lisp. Obviously, the document to allocate some EID space is not yet on the publication queue. However, the base should say something about this, at least that procedures for allocating EID space for the purposes of running the early test deployments are under development. Finally, I think when that document comes to us, it should say that IANA manages the allocations, I think it is too early for the IETF to ask Internet Registries to hand out EID space. IANA can handle a reasonable number of requests, just like they do for various other number spaces. Also, we've already exchanged some e-mails about saying something about the IPv4 EID space, as it is not readily available for allocation.

*5) Waiting on IANA*
- My Discuss

IANA has not yet done a review. I need to wait a couple of days for that.

Thoughts? Comments? Did I miss anything?

Jari