Subject: Re: [lisp] #112: use of re-encapsulation is underspecified

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:20:51 -0000

#112: use of re-encapsulation is underspecified

Changes (by terry.manderson@…):

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

Comment:

 Re-escapsulation is a traffic engineering mechanism, describing this in
 draft-ietf-lisp is not the right place. At this stage the WG does not have
 a document that describes how to do traffic engineering. Perhaps in the
 future that document may come to life. Until it does there is no way
 forward for this ticket.

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:21:17 -0000

* status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical          |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:11:38 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

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

Comment:

 From the last proposed resolution text:

    Re-encapsulation is a traffic engineering mechanism, describing this in
 draft-
    ietf-lisp  is not the right place. At this stage the WG does not have a
 document
    that describes how to do traffic engineering. Perhaps in the future
 that document
    may come to life. Until it does there is no way forward for this
 ticket.

 Does the above mean that the only use for re-encapsulation is for traffic
 engineering ?
 If yes, and if indeed draft-ietf-lisp "is not the right place" for
 describing
 re-encapsulation as a traffic engineering mechanism, then all the
 references to re-encapsulation should be removed from the draft.

-- 
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter:  yakov@…            |        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/112#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:40:52 -0000

* priority:  major => trivial
  * type:  technical => editorial

-- 
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter:  yakov@…            |        Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial          |       Status:  reopened       
Priority:  trivial            |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                  |   Resolution:                 
Keywords:                     |  
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:09:21 -0000

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

Comment:

 As chairs, Joel and I concluded that what was said in the draft about re-
 encapsualtion was adequate for a an experimental draft and did not need to
 be expanded to provide an in-depth description of traffic engineering.
 This ticket will be re-closed. My previous comment about the possibility
 for another document that addresses such traffic engineering concerns
 remains.

    Type:  editorial          |       Status:  resolved       

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:09:32 -0000

Type:  editorial          |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112#comment:6>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues