Subject: Re: [lisp] #45: LISP vs. Existing (from Y. Rekhter)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:41:15 -0000

#45: LISP vs. Existing (from Y. Rekhter)

Changes (by luigi@…):

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

Comment:

 Authors replied on the mailinglist that in their opinion there is no need
 to make any change to the draft. Neither the original person that raised
 the issue nor the mailinglist stated a different opinion.

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  wmhaddad@…          |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical           |       Status:  resolved       
Priority:  major               |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |   Resolution:  fixed          
Keywords:                      |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/45#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:41:30 -0000

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical           |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/45#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:35:36 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

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

Comment:

 In order to close the ticket the authors should point to the text that
 answers the question raised in the ticket.

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  wmhaddad@…          |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical           |       Status:  reopened       
Priority:  major               |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |   Resolution:                 
Keywords:                      |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/45#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:54:45 -0000

Comment(by yakov@…):

 From the response I received:

   Thank you for your contribution to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt. The draft
 authors
   have reviewed your comments but do not feel that changes to the document
 are
   warranted at this time.  In this case, this draft is an experimental
 protocol
   specification it seems out of place to discuss how sites use NAT at
 length.

 Note that I did not ask "to discuss how sites use NAT at length" - I asked
 to document the benefits that LISP could offer to sites that use NAT. If
 the authors think that this should be done in some other LISP WG document,
 then I'll be glad to hear their proposal.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/45#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:10:03 -0400

If the issue of the deployment benefit interaction needs to be addressed 
at all (and I am not sure it does), then it would be in either the 
deployment draft or in yet a different applicability statement (which I 
hope we do not decide we need.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:45:27 -0700

Joel,

> hope we do not decide we need.)

I have no problems if this issue will be addressed in the LISP WG
deployment draft (I have a problem if this issue is not addressed
at all).  However, (to the best of my knowledge) as of now there
is no LISP WG deployment draft (there is only an individual
submission). Given that, what are the mechanisms/procedures we can
use to make sure that this issue will be addressed in the LISP WG
deployment draft ?

Yakov.

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:57:51 -0000

Changes (by terry.manderson@…):

  * status:  reopened => resolved
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 As a protocol definition in a document with experimental status we do not
 believe, as chairs, that
  it needs to outline the benefits that LISP may offer in NAT environments,
 or many other similar
 technology environments.

 It may be that these benefits are outlined in another informational
 document in the future, but
 it is out of scope for draft-ietf-lisp.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/45#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues