Subject: Re: [lisp] #90: Restricting re-encapsulation (comment 12 reported by Y. Rekhter)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:07:55 -0000

#90: Restricting re-encapsulation (comment 12 reported by 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/90#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:08:13 -0000

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical           |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/90#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:58:13 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

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

Comment:

 The question posed in this comment is still not answered.Thus the ticket
 should stay open until the question is answered.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/90#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:18:22 +0100

Yakov,

Let me summarize in this mail a large part of the re-opened issues, so to avoid to send multiple emails with the same content.

What follows is a list of the re-opened issues and a link to the email that provided an answer to the issue.

All emails are dated july/august 2010. 

IMHO and in order to progress, the original author of the issue (is not always you) should clearly state why he is not satisfied with the provided answer (even better would be to suggest text and corrections).

Hope the following links will help in re-start the discussion and make progress.

Luigi

--

Re: [lisp] #90: Restricting re-encapsulation (comment 12 reported by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02324.html

Re: [lisp] #89: On redefining the name of the encapsulated packet header (comment 12 reported by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02323.html

Re: [lisp] #71: Missing description mechanism to make EID-to-RLOC (from D. Papadimitriou's review)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02314.html

Re: [lisp] #73: Tunnel liveness (from R. Bonica review for the RTG directorate)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02315.html

Re: [lisp] #70: Client not respecting RLOC weights (from Y. Rekhter's review)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02312.html

Re: [lisp] #66: Strict RLOC ordering causing problems on mapping changes
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02309.html

Re: [lisp] #57: How to determine EIDs not forwardable on the routable topology (from Y. Rekhter's review)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02305.html

Re: [lisp] #53: Reachability between ETR and EID (review by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02302.html

Re: [lisp] #47: Ambiguity on "MAP-replies" requirements (review by Y. Rekhter)
Re: [lisp] #49: "MAP-Replies" content that is allowed to change (review by Y. Rekhter)
Re: [lisp] #50: MAP-Replies content that MUST be invariant (review by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02340.html

Re: [lisp] #46: Cache Thrashing (review by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02300.html

Re: [lisp] #45: LISP vs. Existing (from Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02301.html

Re: [lisp] #44: LISP vs existing (reported by Yakov Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02299.html

Re: [lisp] #111: Semantics of LSB
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02332.html

Re: [lisp] #101: Filtering ICMP messages (comment 19 reported by Y. Rekhter)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02330.html

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:45 -0000

Changes (by terry.manderson@…):

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

Comment:

 from the chairs point of view this issue is fixed, the restriction was
 removed.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/90#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:58 -0000

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/90#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues