Subject: Re: [lisp] #44: LISP vs existing (reported by Yakov Rekhter)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:39:55 -0000

#44: LISP vs existing (reported by Yakov 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/44#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:40:11 -0000

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical           |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/44#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:36:38 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

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

Comment:

 In order to close the ticket the authors need to 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: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/44#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:57:34 -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 the benefits of existing
 PI
   multihoming at length.

 Note that I did not ask "to discuss the benefits of existing PI
 multihoming at length" - I asked to document the benefits that LISP could
 offer to sites that use PI. 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/44#comment:6>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:16:19 -0400

I do not understand what you are asking for here.  The roginal ticket 
says "What LISP offers to audiences which already using PI."
To a small degree, we might make such a case in the deployment document. 
  But I would not attempt to do so.  From the point of view of the 
eixsting PI user, they don't have a problem.  However, teh system has a 
problem with widespread PI deployment.

Now, I recognize that folks disagree about the degree of that problem. 
The LISP document already points to the places that is discussed.
Any effort to discuss it further in the LISP documents would induce 
controversy without actually solving anything.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:54:39 -0700

Joel,

> I do not understand what you are asking for here.  The original ticket 

That is correct.

> To a small degree, we might make such a case in the deployment document. 

And as I said in my comment, it would be fine with me if this will
be addressed in the LISP WG deployment document.  (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 ?

> eixsting PI user, they don't have a problem.  

I am not asking whether the existing PI users "have a problem" - I am
asking to document whether LISP offers any benefits to *such users*.

> However, the system has a problem with widespread PI deployment.

There is a need to document which parts of "the system" have such
problem, and which parts of "the system" would need to deploy LISP
in order to solve this problem. As I said above, it would be fine
with me if this will be done in the LISP WG deployment document.
  
Yakov.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:55:50 -0400

I do not follow why the LISP document need to describe all of the 
intricacies of the problems they are attempting to address.  The 
introduction to the LISP base document cites a number of other RFCs that 
discuss the issues.

If all you want is a sentence in the introduction re-iterating that the 
use of LISP could help reduce the need for unaggregatable PI 
advertisements in the core, if the experiments prove successful, I 
suppose we could add such a sentence.  I do not see how it would help 
the reader.

You seem to be imputing a claim to the document, and asking the authors 
to justify that claim.  As far as I know, it is not a claim they have 
made.  I do not see why they need to justify such a claim.  I also do 
not see why they would need to disclaim such an intention.  We do not 
ask drafts to disclaim all possible unjustified applications.  And we 
certainly don't ask that of experimental drafts.

Yours,
Joel

PS: The WG will be considering, and I expect adopting, the deployment 
draft in the near future.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:13:30 +0100

Hi Yakov,

 > with me if this will be done in the LISP WG deployment document.

Let me allow to observe that the document answering your question does 
already exit.

It is RFC 4984 available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4984.txt

With this in mind justification and explanation of "the problem" is 
beyond the scope of LISP WG or for that matter any other working group 
which is focused to deliver their own approach to address "the problem".

I believe that if there are questions reg the definition of the problem 
the tickets should be open against RFC4984 and not against any WGs 
working on the solutions for it.

Many thx,
R.

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:05:58 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/44#comment:7>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:06:17 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/44#comment:8>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues