From nobody Mon Dec 1 03:40:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B991A1B4E for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 03:40:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yaDfFHwFToS for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 03:40:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85DD31A1B47 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 03:40:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hl2so12814372igb.5 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 03:40:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=boCeo7v4UAeFn2f6HSl2WivcOCCup7Pw+3O3cHEFPqU=; b=NOyR0zNJkjpfwaDAgSBij/CRH/v56QPu1YGcqeCscBdf+prS7QUzHeR2xhmWromrze Smpef9omiXdTzWPYrUCyXphS9FYZ+g8tGyRsskQj13P3gKHT1X0u/SbA/osBXrJQ2DlF Fyaxr+MiuzRigj+/d7o0bfuVfNQc4sxklQuqh7wFoZw16j82H/SxTXdIVZQVmIvGD0gk 2mExCMQ2OXqjv9dXtFC9Vk6z92J1WpVynX0tFHDQc8NKphQhv+JD/0wqncvTp8iIG5h8 mOSBsHtHCshzJgbT2MxRlUudqZbW6O5LrrOZVuETpxFawzgTeB6FNpgDQdSwvHnantxD hgwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.29.5 with SMTP id d5mr52256135iod.45.1417434028379; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 03:40:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.35.73 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 03:40:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8B6BA237-6365-42FB-8EC6-E9CC59A107BB@lispmob.org> References:

<8B6BA237-6365-42FB-8EC6-E9CC59A107BB@lispmob.org> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:40:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: Albert Cabellos To: "lisp@ietf.org" , Luigi Iannone , Dino Farinacci Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fe4d2c14e5b0509261303 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/W-fHh5RHf_7XZ1UM2eKR4QY0Ho0 Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: acabello@ac.upc.edu List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:40:31 -0000 --001a113fe4d2c14e5b0509261303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Luigi > Is the WG OK to work on the proposed encoding and push the work on a more general format to later times (i.e. after rechartering)? I agree with the current format, existing data-planes are still a moving target and it is hard to anticipate their requirements. Additionally some requirements might result in multiple lookups. Albert --001a113fe4d2c14e5b0509261303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Luigi

> Is the WG OK to work on the proposed encoding= and push the work on a more general format to later times (i.e. after rech= artering)?

I agree with the current format, existing data-planes are still a moving= target and it is hard to anticipate their requirements. Additionally some = requirements might result in multiple lookups.

Albert

--001a113fe4d2c14e5b0509261303-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 14:20:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAEE1ACCEC; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:20:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHOLBgBHxar9; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038781AC529; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:20:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.7.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141201222025.2102.48988.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:20:25 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/DnZRTVaERLtATqqWPrfjY12DIF0 Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 22:20:26 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Authors : Dino Farinacci Dave Meyer Job Snijders Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt Pages : 35 Date : 2014-12-01 Abstract: This draft defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP Mapping Database System. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Dec 2 00:27:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAAC1A01F2 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:27:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8oRaEkMO040 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13781A01EC for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so8012267wgh.8 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:27:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cA8zNnsgePhlHcVCTfYx8WTtJ7bm9zUA3pGPpk9mP+Q=; b=qoQ5dOSAc2a0mfpbY7sF4vQOF5b8IEebyaHRoAritYKzB/UxO6ggSJVgKqSfBd41uu anTHukvBZ7CO01bMDsWKLgsxkrez3z881HB9Z9Qwy7Rloo6iUzDGdnT7egaWkKNpgt5Z d5zPsbIngAU31Riq1AM0WAELPIMT8nqt4Etu+EKQHQDDvHgyFnO0sVTH0nWRel1Dsj+e qKXa5EB/obIJk0n5iZhMQKFby2N1O4SdynS1oOj0J9Qua5/rQQSevwqln04UTOhu+TiK /H7b5UvXszu7uq8tBLxyQbNoxVhGh6CiKspzqrO89FnQGpr9ogZKVGB5Go3YqYNQEMDI t+ow== X-Received: by 10.194.3.2 with SMTP id 2mr101571969wjy.89.1417508855783; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.122.242.200] (nat-eduroam-agro.univ-avignon.fr. [194.57.216.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm45386408wiw.4.2014.12.02.00.27.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:27:35 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:27:33 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1993E9DB-CEDB-45AD-9BF3-1837B89BE44A@gmail.com> References:

To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/c3NhlFZOMCy088TMQDAhefjxQeY Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:27:40 -0000 On 27 Nov 2014, at 16:34, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Is the WG OK to work on the proposed encoding and push the work on a = more general format to later times (i.e. after rechartering)? Ok for me. At that time it will then be interesting to see if we can = make control-plane AND data-plane more general/extensible while keeping backward compatible. Damien Saucez=20 From nobody Tue Dec 2 09:52:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549BE1A6EF8 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:52:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1vbTrFQOB4O for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E9C1A212A for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:52:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=677; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417542737; x=1418752337; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=UezewsH8GBg4mFlOIK3JryKzTJ4UzbCcvUj14df7MiM=; b=g0Uvzeu4h1NrzhFZ01A9ILZJEapov7mn9H5t7PItS89D+Om6YE6cP0qs uwEMYWUuXgNO1iwkDMzJmCd4auJzkS+2jp12gpc/kWgMPq5ZVWMVgboLr 0k2ts6KnMy4a0inmkOpZCDTNSudPIJ9RAyfkeaoCBiGmCJ6XESm13byrn o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFANP7fVStJA2H/2dsb2JhbABbgwdSWQTHAgqGHwKBJBYBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQMBAQEBawsQAgEIGC4hBgslAgQOBYgrAwkJDdBbDYV7AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSOOIIEMweDKYEfBZBhiSaBf45chkWDe2+BRoEBAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="373821569" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2014 17:52:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB2HqGP2027276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 17:52:16 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.22]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:52:16 -0600 From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" To: Damien Saucez Thread-Topic: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type Thread-Index: AQHQDli16forLdrh5ECeL0K3KCnx8w== Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 17:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: References:

<1993E9DB-CEDB-45AD-9BF3-1837B89BE44A@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1993E9DB-CEDB-45AD-9BF3-1837B89BE44A@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.253.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HjodggDvagxro31NBy3y4-Tl69g Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:52:26 -0000 I=92m good with this approach. -D On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Damien Saucez wrote: >=20 > On 27 Nov 2014, at 16:34, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 >> Is the WG OK to work on the proposed encoding and push the work on a mor= e general format to later times (i.e. after rechartering)? >=20 > Ok for me. At that time it will then be interesting to see if we can make > control-plane AND data-plane more general/extensible while keeping > backward compatible. >=20 > Damien Saucez=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Dec 2 09:54:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50641A6F2A for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgR6tAR0d0-t for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B0941A2130 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:54:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=847; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417542877; x=1418752477; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vTVxRTzoqEKMXsjxJsFPmmcAB9PFboZfAzVT8i4VDNo=; b=KLMjErAa18/HLVfq3RRfKmRrlWRCloiSurfLAHoeYuplvEkRDVHaXgKm qQwOHXC+TqOIEt8qGiMTEEUVesBaGks9KiGcDOzfpFARQ5nYn8y4BHheJ WqEaxBtxhwVGmOgbiPymh36h5Qd/YMntpU4NU2lY5wYPAiVwjM2/dl1R9 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAJ/7fVStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABbgweBKwTNKwKBJBYBAQEBAX2EAwEBAwF5EAIBCA44MiUCBA4FiDcJ1nEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXkB4BARwzB4MpgR8BBJBhiyWVIYN7b4ENOYEBAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,501,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="101972376" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2014 17:54:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB2Hsagu015395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 17:54:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.22]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:54:36 -0600 From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" To: Luigi Iannone Thread-Topic: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type Thread-Index: AQHQDlkI6forLdrh5ECeL0K3KCnx8w== Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 17:54:35 +0000 Message-ID: <44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com> References:

In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.253.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/R5SXSh4LbYFNfMiS4x7dDpzVQuI Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:54:38 -0000 On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > About point (1) of Dino=92s mail:=20 >=20 > The proposed encoding is based on a bitwise approach that today reserves = specific bits to encapsulation formats that at this time are not WG documen= ts anywhere in the IETF. The WG should be aware that the dependencies intro= duced in the document may slow down its progress. In general, I believe this points out that we need a Registry for LCAF type= s that is independent of this document status. Certainly we want to encour= age future types to be developed independent of the LCAF draft=92s status. = That is, I would like to see LCAF go to publication independent of any par= ticular AF extension=92s progress/use. I believe Joel said something simil= ar at the mic a few meetings ago. -DArrel= From nobody Tue Dec 2 11:02:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E842D1A0358 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:02:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fUjCOI6lzwr for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:02:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6765A1A6FD8 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id fp1so13765152pdb.1 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XpizN8cytCBnCfDyzFvqxwCXeeI2001LfvrBVDDNwXg=; b=Myemhws57k6nsfjAgltt2iOi6SRon+oyeBLMEAgSQCOi3WE5KOiHF6qfrkDMuywmzK R3cnKYR5pAGiGO5rP+j32O0lVbDxxdj+vTL6RIK7BTdV8tia7r3Hzuy4k6zP8hBBi2FB 82O2w5mRXtSzJa1arrgoNjb6+PgrcD8w8O0EJSpwP0rw+tZ+jSrbF99WDncZKweQSIwB 6KsfaN+ikkRXbz1OBS3pzLeoZ5uzagWR5fykvJlwdUx2WmxQlWGfTsFlk4ZLkjdVxVA3 EzptoTEVe7LWySftyBbk5gNVMPGL4ApzoRvnahI4DemuHKV+zEFBt4SYkG1ywCS33Gpi 2zaA== X-Received: by 10.70.27.225 with SMTP id w1mr1559649pdg.40.1417546916593; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.10.2] (mobile-166-171-249-118.mycingular.net. [166.171.249.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm20985706pdw.87.2014.12.02.11.01.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:01:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:01:53 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com> References:

<44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com> To: Darrel Lewis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HQDXj5G3bniODnJTK2yAGm8Kvbg Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 19:02:48 -0000 So let's have one. Dino > On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) = wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> About point (1) of Dino=92s mail:=20 >>=20 >> The proposed encoding is based on a bitwise approach that today = reserves specific bits to encapsulation formats that at this time are = not WG documents anywhere in the IETF. The WG should be aware that the = dependencies introduced in the document may slow down its progress. >=20 > In general, I believe this points out that we need a Registry for LCAF = types that is independent of this document status. Certainly we want to = encourage future types to be developed independent of the LCAF draft=92s = status. That is, I would like to see LCAF go to publication independent = of any particular AF extension=92s progress/use. I believe Joel said = something similar at the mic a few meetings ago. >=20 > -DArrel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Dec 2 12:01:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4C31A701D for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:01:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xuksvw0znbBA for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4B81A7016 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw-2.ac.upc.es (gw-2.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.8]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB2K0uQZ002257; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:00:56 +0100 Received: from [10.154.176.215] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by gw-2.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94C77C5; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:00:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <547E1A76.2000207@ac.upc.edu> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:00:54 -0800 From: Florin Coras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp@ietf.org References:

<44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com> <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ydu2hRVlgVor8rRI_mCVNcmo6E4 Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:01:19 -0000 +1 Florin On 12/2/14 11:01 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > So let's have one. > > Dino > >> On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> >>> About point (1) of Dino�s mail: >>> >>> The proposed encoding is based on a bitwise approach that today reserves specific bits to encapsulation formats that at this time are not WG documents anywhere in the IETF. The WG should be aware that the dependencies introduced in the document may slow down its progress. >> In general, I believe this points out that we need a Registry for LCAF types that is independent of this document status. Certainly we want to encourage future types to be developed independent of the LCAF draft�s status. That is, I would like to see LCAF go to publication independent of any particular AF extension�s progress/use. I believe Joel said something similar at the mic a few meetings ago. >> >> -DArrel >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Wed Dec 3 05:17:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F30F1A1AE1 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:17:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyULcHTbRR7S for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:17:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8288A1A1AA3 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:17:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2D656; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:16:58 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1417612617; bh=5ChYDQLy/eQ6RZ4MB/fMeo8BKO3I9rCkgwBoQ3Gx1ek=; b=r iZtOcDlgJTeZNlgUxwMzvZwx9PsDZ/7wVyGgLLLwu8X2VeC8T0kqK/LsEHie4hTS UTgI4bYToORgaZkD1Ca7Rm+LnOgCQ6UVth2ni7Ztl2rPDytK1vVsyySuM34T45ir eGKifdpBIRLd9F3JIjwlJNipKTf1k9+ks3AeInZJvM= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 2BaUQWpfaJwc; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:16:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:8640:1::8d33:9886:bb65:df11] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:8640:1:0:8d33:9886:bb65:df11]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CCF845; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:16:57 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2058.2\)) From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:16:56 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6032A205-DBA4-43B4-866C-4DF73B7D7411@steffann.nl> References:

<44E9A1FF-4F0A-4DCC-AE76-E717404CF9FA@cisco.com> <944C1F27-34E0-4ACF-BA88-05FE48C1BAEB@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2058.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/32XVfgf4vNbQz6eq7bG21gKvxKY Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:17:01 -0000 > So let's have one. +1 Sander From nobody Thu Dec 4 03:27:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F661A0250 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5my84x6eX-6 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718131A01E1 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b13so22563123wgh.31 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=1uvCrv7jfiXR/uwJIK8j5NCZN6MBH9UtWUdBjC8Rmx8=; b=mZFdLrGjx9w8K6C8YznMQKuVUXjgnBhkPeFrwLa5x51sNVXGxHBffYHCdC1XT8rpTi yStiRf1+tMeIVfpz+JZkE/0xHxvZwbcbJGQjgUskqfBCLWBM516RilyiDe/+ZYjIY96X 0wDzrmY0WqXsJtWwGbtyOJ+zQzeXIPTtnjghLwyV31kh+m+/56+m/TstgFGhBCa5OpzZ p/QLodNteNCfGMbYG1PLCen2bTYxleVMZUrgOpFQ56Sb5tE/RoM2+5T00LpNEi1LDrLf Vtffplv+yx/7CZ1V1oAyMcbcBndbHi/YtfDWOeEAyHMcPrj3Bqymegc/Og6+FnJgsWw2 LdfA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnD+Un0xRr2GRQS0YL/pQ8n6d2Bbe6a+A89ity1htIyGOMWHZWonv9JWIqkM4ZNx6E1aE8b X-Received: by 10.180.104.65 with SMTP id gc1mr32270942wib.46.1417692431152; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp164-145.enst.fr (dhcp164-145.enst.fr. [137.194.165.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bc1sm54568088wib.16.2014.12.04.03.27.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:10 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:27:10 +0100 Message-Id: To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/EJVaVXmtU9phHKmSdmarkAmLpBg Cc: Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:27:15 -0000 Hi All, During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01]=20 asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on = adoption. This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the = meeting outcome.=20 The call ends on December 19th 2014. Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval = or disapproval. Recall that: - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. =20 Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want = to see changes to its content. - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why,=20 and explain what it would take to address your concerns. - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 begin a dialog about how best to address them. =20 = =20 Luigi and Joel From nobody Thu Dec 4 03:27:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E741A01E1 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.25 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Npl-7rjHy--K for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008A81A024C for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 03:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r20so36020119wiv.0 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version; bh=s57gAdE4ASP7wKAjgP9Pt1peVXjfUvjAULC1aFs6FYA=; b=QNBifhj5ZCRC7DwssBMODRd+C5RVDER9kJ1OhUmIsuT7kuXsNdd2ZtUjifvJIp5hRa 7RwWJWjOwW/En36hxSRIDGH8w04ctJH2lfCWgCSjlxYXQWDKgFKxnMDUtvVn5f96WbgM Ewi9R5e98xAxHRKaXC8XlmHXUL5PWc1eW+bQjraINM+7YNjxupGGIH7HmIjwghIbUarY ITUK7z8TsmoVbIBSy/Ya9tcq2mtUr2iPeC/oB47d2vL/0GZTfwB3MXkB6VAz3Ev1e54e LowmB70N6YXvHzAKYOqfy3G+4k34H7395oLfzVFpXhnPbXAVFeJs+jDWMjhjzPcr34os L7jg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkdBtF/4MJNqEBTSA6XjEKluF/hjYn8j9M90RhVEIuhHsIJ5MmERNYYtHKI1E0AgmNVKau+ X-Received: by 10.180.9.229 with SMTP id d5mr20559842wib.22.1417692432649; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp164-145.enst.fr (dhcp164-145.enst.fr. [137.194.165.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bc1sm54568088wib.16.2014.12.04.03.27.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:27:11 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2F17E592-21DF-4E96-B21D-FE1790354E4F" Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:27:11 +0100 Message-Id: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/jsbdNXTjq7YQ1oxQdR_Fi91EjKc Cc: Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:27:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2F17E592-21DF-4E96-B21D-FE1790354E4F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi All, During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07]=20 asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on = adoption. This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the = meeting outcome.=20 The call ends on December 19th 2014. Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval = or disapproval. Recall that: - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. =20 Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want = to see changes to its content. - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why,=20 and explain what it would take to address your concerns. - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 begin a dialog about how best to address them. =20 = =20 Luigi and Joel --Apple-Mail=_2F17E592-21DF-4E96-B21D-FE1790354E4F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Hi All,

During = the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07]&nb= sp;
asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed = consensus on adoption.

This message begins = the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the meeting = outcome.
The call ends on December 19th = 2014.

Please respond to the LISP mailing = list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

Recall that:

- This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and = the WG is expected to

modify the = document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that the = content is solid.

Therefore, = please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want to see = changes to its content.

- If you have objections to adoption of the document, please = state your reasons why,

and explain = what it would take to address your concerns.

- If you have issues with the content, = by all means raise those issues and we can

begin a dialog about how best to address them.
=

= = = = = =

Luigi and Joel

= --Apple-Mail=_2F17E592-21DF-4E96-B21D-FE1790354E4F-- From nobody Thu Dec 4 05:33:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735481AD380 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:33:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t7WkFVloRw6p for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3DAE1A8985 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h11so27828714wiw.9 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:33:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version; bh=9a20dbz1ILLhVuNtYYef7fscWXHQ+pGL96QdJGcUNnc=; b=NNQfZsoMckTDggeU2fvBfYas3zeMcKPNTbXiUwgoZenLmxPXQBRH+xw7B4B9trJ+Fw 7aX3KPrlVBg1DywIj+RL30zBfpqtm9alDQTdw/y73qtY85oiZ+P8e34atSlyeoH8d4V7 AjpOvuG7dxIJ/BaaNkc52Ybty6qSjolfZOZEO64lVD1ICOZktCC//jENt0u+GxZ2BbHM 52pTicsYfHao/w++E5e3JjNMXSLdFQ0xipK4dLO72lbg3btkekJKD4xjWSCiwxBWy210 iBlPPhRhWEeoKyxfHBQW8ipk8nKFZEPgctxu1vyc6wMGMoM1aCJVgjuHx3qju6Ro64eR JQaw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQktaLEpE47lQNPq/6OWQstjyaKyD2OGpkWVNS7CJQFodWQkBIr0qzuuJGe1rrDwSFXDOlKD X-Received: by 10.194.119.193 with SMTP id kw1mr15962407wjb.37.1417700029554; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:69db:15b4:c931:bb09? ([2001:660:330f:a4:69db:15b4:c931:bb09]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d2sm40548242wjs.32.2014.12.04.05.33.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:33:48 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FC03F684-13CF-428F-A045-2D999B43F630" Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:33:48 +0100 Message-Id: To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/kEAjyER2dqYH9U6cKkr7Rwtq_Nc Cc: Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:33:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FC03F684-13CF-428F-A045-2D999B43F630 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines = document,=20 with the submission of the -03 version = [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt = ], the work seems done and no further issues are pending. During the 91st IETF meeting the authors requested to resume the WG Last = Call. This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December 19th, 2014. Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you agree = that it is ready for handing to the AD. If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain what = it would take to address your concerns. Thanks Luigi & Joel --Apple-Mail=_FC03F684-13CF-428F-A045-2D999B43F630 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi All,

After the final = re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines document,

with the submission of the -03 version [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt],

the work seems done and no further issues are = pending.

During the 91st IETF meeting the authors = requested to resume the WG Last Call.

This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December = 19th, 2014.

Please review this updated WG = document and let the WG know if you agree that it is ready for handing = to the AD.

If you have objections, please state = your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your = concerns.

Thanks

Luigi & Joel

Dino

Begin forwarded = message:

Date: = December 9, 2014 at 2:46:30 PM = PST
From: = Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: = "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Subject: = [sfc] routing = area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

I have chartered a Routing Area Design Team to work on = data-plane encapsulation considerations.

I've bcc'd nvo3, sfc, bier, and rtgwg = as the most directly relevant. Please keep any conversation in one = place on routing-discussion.

Erik Nordmark has kindly agreed to lead = this design team. The members of the design
team are:

Albert Tian = <albert.tian@ericsson.com>
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
Jesse Gross = <jgross@vmware.com>
Jon Hudson = <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
Larry = Kreeger (kreeger) <kreeger@cisco.com>
Pankaj Garg <Garg.Pankaj@microsoft.com>
Pat = Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com>
Tom Herbert = <therbert@google.com>

The mailing list, rgt-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org, is closed but the = archives are
publicly = available at:
= http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-consideration= s/current/maillist.html

The Design Team is chartered as follows:

There have been multiple efforts over the years that have = resulted in new or modified data plane behaviors involving = encapsulations. That includes IETF efforts like MPLS, LISP, and TRILL = but also industry efforts like Vxlan and NVGRE. These collectively = can be seen as a source of insight into the properties that data planes = need to meet. The IETF is currently working on potentially new = encapsulations in NVO3 and SFC and considering working on BIER. In = addition there is work on tunneling in the INT area.

This is a short term design team chartered to collect and = construct useful advice to parties working on new or modified data plane = behaviors that include additional encapsulations. The goal is for = the group to document useful advice gathered from interacting with = ongoing efforts. An Internet Draft will be produced for IETF92 to = capture that advice, which will be discussed in RTGWG.

Data plane encapsulations face a set of common issues such = as:

* How to provide entropy for = ECMP
* Issues around packet size and = fragmentation/reassembly
* OAM - what support is = needed in an encapsulation format?
* Security and = privacy.
* QoS
= * Congestion Considerations
* IPv6 header = protection (non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue)
= * Extensibility - e.g., for evolving OAM, security, and/or congestion = control
* Layering of multiple encapsulations e.g., = SFC over NVO3 over BIER

The design team = will provide advice on those issues. The intention is that even where we = have different encapsulations for different purposes carrying different = data, each such encapsulation doesn=E2=80=99t have to reinvent the wheel = for the above common issues.

The design team = will look across the routing area in particular at SFC, NVO3 and BIER. = It will not be involved in comparing or analyzing any particular = encapsulation formats proposed in those WGs and BoFs but instead focus = on common advice.

Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
sfc = mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

= --Apple-Mail=_92879204-B70E-4553-B6D6-A20203C6B082-- From nobody Wed Dec 10 10:29:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4531A6FC6 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zE1CjJWlSAjI for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from door.sniff.de (door.sniff.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:94f:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F5C1A066C for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.sniff.de [127.0.0.1]) by door.sniff.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B180F2AA0F; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:29:08 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:01 -0800 From: Marc Binderberger To: Dino Farinacci Message-ID: <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de> In-Reply-To: References: <5480B13C.4090203@cisco.com> <97DA0D20-84D3-4478-8F90-C033E67172CD@gmail.com> <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com> <54822778.6050505@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.15 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/9qXVBD3TnXTpxxGHpkerUnkrZL0 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:29:12 -0000 Hello Dino, you mentioned in another email > The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create laser focus on > control-plane features and scale. The latter being most important. I like the ideas in your crypto draft but the data header aspect ... could you change this to a set of requirements your draft has for the data header and drop the explicit header layout instead? This would give the draft the focus on the control plane and we keep the details of the data header open. Thanks & Regards, Marc On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:06:47 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> extension of the encap (as well as of the control plane, if needed) to >> address various LISP use cases. > > I do like to see a list of requirements that requires changes to LISP > encapsulation. > > LISP-GPE adds no new functionality. NSH can be done without packet > encapsulation from any overlay protocol. > >> In my experience when customers see the benefit of overlays (LISP in my >> case) they tend jump on it... but you know this way better than me :-) >> It's our responsibility as a WG to clear up the confusion about >> encapsulations. > > Well adding new encapsulation to the mix doesn't clear up confusion. It > adds to it. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From nobody Wed Dec 10 10:33:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A639A1A1B5B for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XzS0hgDnG8h0 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x234.google.com (mail-pd0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6D31A6FC6 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w10so3257733pde.25 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dKpE2nJTb5hRbhi7mWVhSJlY711Ig1tYLYZWdQurJ1s=; b=QJAtlGSUkCwR05e6ncRHhgPaBrL2gyBiG082BhI8jEEk+9P9ya0V8I5Cji88me8ywV zV9j3SKAm+2e0DR/KqdbhFIpheYNWOkRP4gWjZi8uKDLgXeRRWfT6erAErvNhukv3Ejn GgAgVKuCHHjszMXdwxTxqaidjsh3Tz62P8z4D6mtDbWwLalh4RSFyKqQaMfSpPeTcISE lFeqtsvSH5KbQC17szSucgDmgsW72gSi4b8PV0ulDl2pKEnqqiDndfHzGe9EyiZrC1vC NQQdae/4JS0wgF1Ng+yfW9bgAtY0U/O33cIYEM7F6Uaq0snlgTBfPmS99UBLI8uRvqio IlFg== X-Received: by 10.66.161.103 with SMTP id xr7mr9396774pab.141.1418236382979; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uq15sm2373255pab.8.2014.12.10.10.33.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:01 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <67605561-BDA3-4BD6-B34B-ED01A4E1AD6B@gmail.com> References: <5480B13C.4090203@cisco.com> <97DA0D20-84D3-4478-8F90-C033E67172CD@gmail.com> <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com> <54822778.6050505@cisco.com> <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de> To: Marc Binderberger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/sZeLHYztgJ-awsrhHid8T-AkCr8 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:33:07 -0000 > Hello Dino, >=20 > you mentioned in another email >=20 >> The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create = laser=20 > focus on >> control-plane features and scale. The latter being most important. >=20 > I like the ideas in your crypto draft but the data header aspect ... = could=20 > you change this to a set of requirements your draft has for the data = header=20 > and drop the explicit header layout instead? >=20 > This would give the draft the focus on the control plane and we keep = the=20 > details of the data header open. Well I think that would create an incomplete draft. How about I keep it = in and indicate there are other ways to pass a key-id with other = encapsulation formats? Thanks for your comments, Dino >=20 >=20 > Thanks & Regards, > Marc >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:06:47 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> extension of the encap (as well as of the control plane, if needed) = to=20 >>> address various LISP use cases. >>=20 >> I do like to see a list of requirements that requires changes to LISP=20= >> encapsulation.=20 >>=20 >> LISP-GPE adds no new functionality. NSH can be done without packet=20 >> encapsulation from any overlay protocol.=20 >>=20 >>> In my experience when customers see the benefit of overlays (LISP in = my=20 >>> case) they tend jump on it... but you know this way better than me = :-)=20 >>> It's our responsibility as a WG to clear up the confusion about=20 >>> encapsulations. >>=20 >> Well adding new encapsulation to the mix doesn't clear up confusion. = It=20 >> adds to it.=20 >>=20 >> Dino >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 From nobody Fri Dec 12 09:33:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E811A1A9C for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:32:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iPcOvCfNZY9N for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AFED1A6FEF for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:32:47 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,565,1413237600"; d="scan'208";a="93198164" Received: from saehrimnir.inria.fr ([138.96.206.202]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Dec 2014 18:32:45 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:32:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/VihTxobnax0QRZkuoM2KBFniCIo Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:32:56 -0000 Hello, I am ok with the last call for the EID Block Management Guidelines = document. Just a question, section 3.b ("Prefix Size Rationale=94) of the "EID = Prefix Request=94 form is mandatory, what information must be put there? Damien Saucez On 04 Dec 2014, at 14:33, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, >=20 > After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines = document,=20 > with the submission of the -03 version = [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt], > the work seems done and no further issues are pending. > During the 91st IETF meeting the authors requested to resume the WG = Last Call. >=20 > This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December 19th, 2014. >=20 > Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you = agree that it is ready for handing to the AD. > If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain = what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Luigi & Joel >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Fri Dec 12 11:18:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46AD1A9027; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:18:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NtYIo6yPf36B; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C121A88E4; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:18:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMU27616; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:18:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:18:39 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml705-chm ([10.193.5.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:18:33 -0800 From: Linda Dunbar To: Dino Farinacci Thread-Topic: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHQEztPcgLT28AsZ0i/51SzuPuK+5yG6eGAgAVgHLA= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:18:33 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.144.144] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27Fdfweml701chm_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/zyY4JqGVrm5XU86AEOR9X0uwPHQ Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:18:50 -0000 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27Fdfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dino, We already have a section (3.3.1) on the mechanism similar to draft-farinac= ci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01, i.e. Egress maintaining the (S, G) state = and send update to the Multicast Service Node (MSN),(whereas in LISP, the u= pdate is sent to MapServer). In NVO3, we also want to allow Multicast Agnostic NVEs (primarily for serve= r based NVEs that don't do anything special for multicast control packets) For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I can a= dd the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is it OK? "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast= -group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrati= ons from different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service No= de (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a multicast-replication-list= inclusive of all remote NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast= -group are attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast entry= is maintained either by MSN or NVA. The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing= the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subsc= ribed to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group= are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 domain gateways to k= eep track of the remote members of each multicast group." Please let me know if this description is good enough? Thank you, Linda -----Original Message----- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:15 PM To: Linda Dunbar Cc: lisp@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Re: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-fr= amework-01.txt > RFC 6831 (LISP for Multicast) states: > "The fundamental multicast forwarding model is to encapsulate a multicast= packet into another multicast packet" Right, the fundamental model so we have the most efficient form of multicas= t delivery. > So LISP assumes that the underlay network supports some sort of IP multic= ast scheme. No, LISP does not, just this RFC does. If you look at the other LISP multic= ast related RFCs, you will see that you can encapsulate multicast packets i= nside of unicast packets. And you can use PIM signaling specified in RFC 6831 to instruct an ETR to e= ncapsulate in unicast. > In NVO3 environment, especially in data center environment, the underlay = network may not necessarily support IP multicast. draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-m= cast-framework-01 describes various mechanisms for forwarding tenant multic= ast traffic without the underlay network supporting the multicast protocols= . Right, see draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01. It can simplify t= he control-plane as well as encapsulate in either unicast or multicast. Dino > > We appreciate your feedback. > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:i= nternet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:17 PM > To: Vinay Bannai; Linda Dunbar; Vinay Bannai; Ram (Ramki) Krishnan; Linda= Dunbar; Anoop Ghanwani; Ram Krishnan; Anoop Ghanwani > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-frame= work-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Linda Dunbar and posted to the IETF re= pository. > > Name: draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework > Revision: 01 > Title: Framework of Supporting Applications Specific Multi= cast in NVO3 > Document date: 2014-12-08 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 16 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ghanwani-nvo3-a= pp-mcast-framework-01.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-= mcast-framework/ > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-= framework-01 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ghanwani-nvo3-ap= p-mcast-framework-01 > > Abstract: > This draft discusses the framework of supporting applications > specific multicast traffic, i.e. the non ARP/ND related > multicast/broadcast traffic, in a network that uses Network > Virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3 (NVO3). It describes the > various mechanisms and considerations that can be used for > delivering those application specific multicast traffic in networks > that use NVO3. > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27Fdfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dino,

We already have a section (3.3.1) on the mechanism similar to draft-fa= rinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01, i.e. Egress maintaining the (S, G) s= tate and send update to the Multicast Service Node (MSN),(whereas in LISP, = the update is sent to MapServer).

In NVO3, we also want to allow Multicast Agnostic NVEs (primarily for = server based NVEs that don’t do anything special for multicast contro= l packets)

For the "source replication" description of our draft (secti= on3.2), I can add the following to make it consistent with the LISP approac= h. Is it OK?

"T= he method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast-group d= escribed in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrations from= different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service Node (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a mu= lticast-replication-list inclusive of all remote NVEs to which receivers fo= r a particular multicast-group are attached. The replication-list for each = specific multicast entry is maintained either by MSN or NVA.

The receiver-s= ites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing the IGMP/MLD snoopi= ng to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subscribed to a given IP = multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 dom= ain gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.”

Please let me know if this description is good enough?

Thank you,

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinac= ci@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:15 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: lisp@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-fr= amework-01.txt

> RFC 6831 (LISP for Multicast) states:

> "The fundamental multicast forwarding model is to encapsulat= e a multicast packet into another multicast packet"

Right, the fundamental model so we have the most efficient form of mul= ticast delivery.

> So LISP assumes that the underlay network supports some sort of I= P multicast scheme.

No, LISP does not, just this RFC does. If you look at the other LISP m= ulticast related RFCs, you will see that you can encapsulate multicast pack= ets inside of unicast packets.

And you can use PIM signaling specified in RFC 6831 to instruct an ETR= to encapsulate in unicast.

> In NVO3 environment, especially in data center environment, the u= nderlay network may not necessarily support IP multicast. draft-ghanwani-nv= o3-app-mcast-framework-01 describes various mechanisms for forwarding tenan= t multicast traffic without the underlay network supporting the multicast protocols.

Right, see draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01. It can simpl= ify the control-plane as well as encapsulate in either unicast or multicast= .

Dino

>

> We appreciate your feedback.

>

> Linda

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: internet-drafts= @ietf.org [mailto:internet-= drafts@ietf.org]

> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:17 PM

> To: Vinay Bannai; Linda Dunbar; Vinay Bannai; Ram (Ramki) Krishna= n; Linda Dunbar; Anoop Ghanwani; Ram Krishnan; Anoop Ghanwani

> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mca= st-framework-01.txt

>

>

> A new version of I-D, draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.= txt

> has been successfully submitted by Linda Dunbar and posted to the= IETF repository.

>

> Name:         draft-ghanw= ani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework

> Revision:     01

> Title:          = ;      Framework of Supporting Applications Specif= ic Multicast in NVO3

> Document date:        2014-12-= 08

> Group:          = ;      Individual Submission

> Pages:          = ;      16

> URL:          &= nbsp; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ghanwan= i-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt

> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framewor= k/

> Htmlized:       http://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01

> Diff:          = http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-= mcast-framework-01

>

> Abstract:

>   This draft discusses the framework of supporting appl= ications

>   specific multicast traffic, i.e. the non ARP/ND relat= ed

>   multicast/broadcast traffic, in a network that uses N= etwork

>   Virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3 (NVO3). It= describes the

>   various mechanisms and considerations that can be use= d for

>   delivering those application specific multicast traff= ic in networks

>   that use NVO3.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of= submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf= .org.

>

> The IETF Secretariat

>

--_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27Fdfweml701chm_-- From nobody Fri Dec 12 11:57:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857261ACF0A; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:57:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bpP9lUaeFEY9; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408F11ACF7E; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z10so7823305pdj.0 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IyXDpqGvLHsXkGtPQDUffpYyzgprw70m6uIrUzoqa2A=; b=CpaSwL4PtA6crRBt+c97F8/FyWE8hIYUoEgaYwQdPlohU+ZOkXgHKDk4/bYO9ZR3bX sGsWgodPbLF9MokXQt7/tEBNqfXyQSfGd6v+N+NUBPDjRsFsKSipwBQ0yP/0pKDe9OZB nLE66xG9iwsFhYKsC/3W5pGYPEH2aIz4kEhu+xj4U3nKLXb99gLDR6eZn/enLi/16E1S q4Bnz629LGP3oTguWBBIHURlR1Kg3ZptU/wzHPEq+RwdO0Zqij2pYPyQkGdto37G5OCb p7J8SYH5lbOZDk3yk1PADxkb6M6M28gB9o9R/zmn+DooIVGeyhTidq+pZEGFyvokyCH+ +lUw== X-Received: by 10.70.130.108 with SMTP id od12mr29363267pdb.109.1418414204583; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.83] ([207.145.253.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x8sm2281629pdi.7.2014.12.12.11.56.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JvRlHmrYYnZz4K-cq01impJ8uoU Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:57:01 -0000 > For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I = can add the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is = it OK? > "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular = multicast-group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. = The registrations from different receiver-sites can be merged at the = Multicast Service Node (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a = multicast-replication-list inclusive of all remote NVEs to which = receivers for a particular multicast-group are attached. The = replication-list for each specific multicast entry is maintained either = by MSN or NVA.=20 > The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing = the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have = subscribed to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a = multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 = domain gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast = group.=E2=80=9D =20 > =20 > Please let me know if this description is good enough? The description is fine but the term "multicast-group" is probably too = specific and does not include IGMPv3 and MLDv2 (S,G) specific entries. I = would change "multicast-group" to "joined-multicast-entry" and then = define what a "joined-multicast-entry" can be. Dino From nobody Fri Dec 12 13:44:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AAD1A8549; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GbhjOd_fR1P; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3451A6EF4; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPZ49124; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:34 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:27 -0800 From: Linda Dunbar To: Dino Farinacci Thread-Topic: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHQEztPcgLT28AsZ0i/51SzuPuK+5yG6eGAgAVgHLCAAKETgP//lpiQ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D36F@dfweml701-chm> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.144.144] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/PgN-GcjeaalmVxsRI144Bjc3M4Q Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:38 -0000 RGlubywgDQoNCkhvdyB3b3VsZCB5b3UgZGVmaW5lIHRoZSB0ZXJtICJqb2luZWQtbXVsdGljYXN0 LWVudHJ5Ij8NCg0KTGl0ZXJhbGx5LCBJIHNlZSAiam9pbmVkLW11bHRpY2FzdC1lbnRyeSIgYmVp bmcgc2ltaWxhciB0byAgInJlcGxpY2F0aW9uLWxpc3QgZm9yIGEgbXVsdGljYXN0IGdyb3VwIiwg KGluc3RlYWQgb2YgbXVsdGljYXN0IGdyb3VwKSwgY29ycmVjdD8gDQoNCkxpbmRhDQoNCi0tLS0t T3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBEaW5vIEZhcmluYWNjaSBbbWFpbHRvOmZhcmlu YWNjaUBnbWFpbC5jb21dIA0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxNCAxOjU2IFBN DQpUbzogTGluZGEgRHVuYmFyDQpDYzogbGlzcEBpZXRmLm9yZzsgbnZvM0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IENvbXBhcmluZyBMSVNQIG11bHRpY2FzdCB3aXRoIGRyYWZ0LWdoYW53YW5pLW52 bzMtYXBwLW1jYXN0LWZyYW1ld29yay0wMS50eHQNCg0KDQo+IEZvciB0aGUgInNvdXJjZSByZXBs aWNhdGlvbiIgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2Ygb3VyIGRyYWZ0IChzZWN0aW9uMy4yKSwgSSBjYW4gYWRk IHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgdG8gbWFrZSBpdCBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHdpdGggdGhlIExJU1AgYXBwcm9h Y2guIElzIGl0IE9LPw0KPiAiVGhlIG1ldGhvZCBvZiByZWNlaXZlci1zaXRlcyByZWdpc3RyYXRp b24gZm9yIGEgcGFydGljdWxhciBtdWx0aWNhc3QtZ3JvdXAgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIFtMSVNQLVNp Z25hbC1GcmVlXSBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCBmb3IgTlZPMy4gVGhlIHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbnMgZnJvbSBk aWZmZXJlbnQgcmVjZWl2ZXItc2l0ZXMgY2FuIGJlIG1lcmdlZCBhdCB0aGUgTXVsdGljYXN0IFNl cnZpY2UgTm9kZSAoTVNOIG9mIFNlY3Rpb24gMy4zKSBvciB0aGUgTlZBIHRvIGFzc2VtYmxlIGEg bXVsdGljYXN0LXJlcGxpY2F0aW9uLWxpc3QgaW5jbHVzaXZlIG9mIGFsbCByZW1vdGUgTlZFcyB0 byB3aGljaCByZWNlaXZlcnMgZm9yIGEgcGFydGljdWxhciBtdWx0aWNhc3QtZ3JvdXAgYXJlIGF0 dGFjaGVkLiBUaGUgcmVwbGljYXRpb24tbGlzdCBmb3IgZWFjaCBzcGVjaWZpYyBtdWx0aWNhc3Qg ZW50cnkgaXMgbWFpbnRhaW5lZCBlaXRoZXIgYnkgTVNOIG9yIE5WQS4gDQo+IFRoZSByZWNlaXZl ci1zaXRlcyByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gaXMgYWNoaWV2ZWQgYnkgZWdyZXNzIE5WRXMgcGVyZm9ybWlu ZyB0aGUgSUdNUC9NTEQgc25vb3BpbmcgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gd2hpY2ggYXR0YWNoZWQgVGVuYW50 IFN5c3RlbXMgaGF2ZSBzdWJzY3JpYmVkIHRvIGEgZ2l2ZW4gSVAgbXVsdGljYXN0IHN0cmVhbS4g V2hlbiB0aGUgbWVtYmVycyBvZiBhIG11bHRpY2FzdCBncm91cCBhcmUgb3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgTlZP MyBkb21haW4sIGl0IGlzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBmb3IgTlZPMyBkb21haW4gZ2F0ZXdheXMgdG8ga2Vl cCB0cmFjayBvZiB0aGUgcmVtb3RlIG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgZWFjaCBtdWx0aWNhc3QgZ3JvdXAu4oCd ICANCj4gIA0KPiBQbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGtub3cgaWYgdGhpcyBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBpcyBnb29k IGVub3VnaD8NCg0KVGhlIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIGlzIGZpbmUgYnV0IHRoZSB0ZXJtICJtdWx0aWNh c3QtZ3JvdXAiIGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IHRvbyBzcGVjaWZpYyBhbmQgZG9lcyBub3QgaW5jbHVkZSBJ R01QdjMgYW5kIE1MRHYyIChTLEcpIHNwZWNpZmljIGVudHJpZXMuIEkgd291bGQgY2hhbmdlICJt dWx0aWNhc3QtZ3JvdXAiIHRvICJqb2luZWQtbXVsdGljYXN0LWVudHJ5IiBhbmQgdGhlbiBkZWZp bmUgd2hhdCBhICJqb2luZWQtbXVsdGljYXN0LWVudHJ5IiBjYW4gYmUuDQoNCkRpbm8NCg0K From nobody Fri Dec 12 13:55:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABC81ACFB4; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7X6RGfXsql3r; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C2E1A8F46; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id kx10so8047676pab.2 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IOSAZFOqrxfo3t3yByqDyt7nAiWrXJnn5d+d2xghTes=; b=S81XskE4hV2ymQU+CCOfg1R5GRchoME++f5dqNLjs04nto8yYH6U4fi2yP1SRtWVOE TsMRthplWYIfP5EyjOqoZWw2I61g3lBL9x1jrCUqYxYtqUx7MkDjAsswXv7mE9pugyLe xsu8m9PgbcFV6JdnkdhFB6dksBlkM5feBDO8BLxbPVXm6QXefyyWUUN39oZywz/v6PBC tcrEkH42RGomKKNtYeYQbVkn4ePhXhv/A32cPyHUE47RQs1k/zshPMkpiCi34S9eXgnO +kVJ27onjWy+AJn22Ye6TlUSKHUeFRXYk1bg6j1iBn4AzPrsghXk+mhjwiHn+iFhTjOn hzFA== X-Received: by 10.70.109.203 with SMTP id hu11mr28355816pdb.36.1418421320591; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.83] ([207.145.253.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a13sm2382640pdm.44.2014.12.12.13.55.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:19 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D36F@dfweml701-chm> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:55:15 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96B99911-4B7E-464B-90F7-F7D924CE368E@gmail.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D36F@dfweml701-chm> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/l6dSuVCH-iVQ6iEf4L45FJ1hwQ4 Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:55:23 -0000 > How would you define the term "joined-multicast-entry"? An IGMPv2 joined group, an IGMPv3 joined (*,G) or (S,G), as well as an = MLDv2 (*,G) or (S,G) joined entry. Dino From nobody Sun Dec 14 06:06:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66891A6F9F for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qq_1P18WUWYZ for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32B801A6F9E for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l15so6651745wiw.10 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7l3nbJJzpwKIzqKh+J7OJ2Ic74s4Frv+cZJc01CBl+g=; b=Dkw866nLRWBgQxU4PnS3NvgPESqE5KEUB/9RCNkqlw0yuKzAkYJOikkZ2I2K0TQL90 7AjvprXk5NELT8QfWKTPP2AyNn/pn3r+gaKoGJe8x60Bip4CXGRzaGgzTZ/VSrfvcG7V S9Ydk0lWW00i+SoUAbDJG2JbolZZc39A2PY6yYud+dd7owwgoYKp00DqiNYwQXMpSjlJ 4AgqjJm2VwQYku2AubLkr3e6zMQZezBpSHhNSTdh8JK2wzvt6L5K1jm60d8ECBuSGBot BOflgWc/DLVWNb+f7VOOmzOMFPHjWMlQQzWKBqYyBZi6mSnaNc40bHsvTj51ck+ZiCMx yqSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknbS6obj9Qpb5Xfjxj2e5zPePhMBbRYQOzT1M59wNsWewXvYTSgQ11PoseJt6ObPJwnFKE X-Received: by 10.194.59.17 with SMTP id v17mr44825329wjq.130.1418565998822; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.42] (bny92-2-81-56-19-67.fbx.proxad.net. [81.56.19.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qd2sm9498522wic.19.2014.12.14.06.06.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:06:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:06:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9D9C61E3-F28D-4AD9-8906-998694C6A1E4@gigix.net> References: To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/axGQ5CAWkptzqXtpwyyPCmFrUjU Subject: [lisp] Outstanding WG Calls X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 14:06:42 -0000 Hi All, It is nice that the crypto document has raised some comments, however, = as I mentioned in the first mail, the document is not final and the WG = is expected to work on it, which may include the discussion about the = header format. Yet, we are not chartered to modify the LISP header. If you want that = work to happen let=E2=80=99s make progress on what we have committed to = finish. Beside the crypto document there is a call for adoption for the impact = document and a WG last call for the EID block management guidelines. Both of those documents received little or no comments on the mailing = list!!! If you want to move forward and work on other things please help the WG = make progress. There is a week until the calls are over. Silence is not consensus! ciao Luigi From nobody Sun Dec 14 06:50:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2281A6FB6 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zp-R8FHTg-Tu for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D024E1A6FB1 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h11so6606873wiw.7 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2OYKxA8tMliqouidv6x0H6OJm1XLf1+4+0plIQmT/nU=; b=rR6YmesodiGVJSDKMIG12OdAVpd7+bHvwFkXrvkJvvupbXaFNiuX5XH8lQjILxulf4 tJB/hEH8TUrg4aW+oAqS+QzamtaQ1kYhq/myIbMYyyUrGpq7QCQlUNxtfff60y9Of9IU 4DsEJ6sy9OTAk0ZnpOLJ8DqjLFom+qUQfGmaVSMkPiBusTGAlGIZ0g4ih2Tw0ca63dJY d41hBzAUvFYnwMxcEdF+TM49Spnde0LtxGmxakGxSayqMh/bmXeHWyps85QzSIE+BidE 5w6vd3lZGTND6vNgc+BBf7/DEtP31tOmOWwsW1lpZyYpUoP/4jL6Rb0OkqMYsCihB63i UORg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.95.68 with SMTP id di4mr23411025wib.49.1418568636632; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.171.72 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:50:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:50:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/naJt97Xpc-BTOijHSSUfdflJLj0 Cc: Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 14:50:40 -0000 On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines document, > with the submission of the -03 version > [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt], > the work seems done and no further issues are pending. > During the 91st IETF meeting the authors requested to resume the WG Last > Call. > > This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December 19th, 2014. > > Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you agree that > it is ready for handing to the AD. > If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain what it > would take to address your concerns. no further comment from me on this document. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no From nobody Mon Dec 15 02:52:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E5B1A1AEC for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:52:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AViGreX61qq1 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6C11A1AF0 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:52:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw-2.ac.upc.es (gw-2.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.8]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sBFAq4bu025103; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:52:05 +0100 Received: from [10.61.99.60] (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) by gw-2.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAF49374; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:52:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <548EBD4D.40309@lispmob.org> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:51:57 +0200 From: Lori Jakab Organization: LISPmob MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ULbt9furLQ1uHukgXyJKsl1Giu4 Cc: Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:52:14 -0000 Hi, On 12/04/2014 03:33 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines document, > with the submission of the -03 version > [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt], > the work seems done and no further issues are pending. > During the 91st IETF meeting the authors requested to resume the WG Last > Call. > > This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December 19th, 2014. > > Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you agree > that it is ready for handing to the AD. I read the document and I think it is ready to be handed to the AD. -Lori > If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain what > it would take to address your concerns. > > Thanks > > Luigi & Joel From nobody Mon Dec 15 03:13:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7765E1A1AEC for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ZyPzcqLnWqz for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1B61A1AFE for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3254; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418642022; x=1419851622; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=nM44ZS9/YRY1TyXGTjbiFr3vUquezHkkx/HaHKG8too=; b=AjyfeTqt+exmpt0ITEWll1ObLagGg3PKRuQfsLi1PZT89tUpDUZUphub Cd1gexR1Ge0eCRLtEABMKFIAThdI5V9+MVMUdPF5RIP92rIINcuBiQtAv hayp9b8JEr7QkaqyjtcC+z6JB9rkMfzwYLNICCG2QSA426JdxWslAP2I1 I=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMEAA7CjlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABahzbITAKBLwEBAQEBfYQNAQEEI1UBEAsEAQkTFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiCi8FZYMAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF49yB4JogUEBBIwcgzCBJ4V+gQuEbiFGilcig209gnMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,579,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="274810055" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2014 11:13:40 +0000 Received: from [10.61.198.133] ([10.61.198.133]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBFBDeYX031391; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:40 GMT Message-ID: <548EC263.9090506@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:13:39 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="v2KSmjFP7rOPNMcL1ptA84RAnOsckLAPa" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/UUh59w8mpC-hh-7WfIwmpux9UWo Cc: Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:46 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --v2KSmjFP7rOPNMcL1ptA84RAnOsckLAPa Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040103040701070100040209" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040103040701070100040209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Luigi & Joel, I read this document. I support its advancement. I do have a comment on the following text: > 3. When an EID prefix registration is removed from the registry, > then the reuse of the EID prefix in a subsequent registration on= > behalf of a different end user should be avoided where possible.= > If the considerations of overall usage of the EID block prefix > requires reuse of a previously registered EID prefix, then a > minimum delay of at least one week between removal and subsequen= t > registration SHOULD be applied by the registry operator. It seems the preference here is that no addresses be reallocated unless the block assigned has been exhausted. Maybe just say that? Eliot --------------040103040701070100040209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Luigi & Joel,

I read this document.=C2=A0 I support its advancement.=C2=A0 I do hav= e a comment on the following text:

3. When an EID prefix registration is removed from the reg= istry, then the reuse of the EID prefix in a subsequent registration on behalf of a different end user should be avoided where possible. If the considerations of overall usage of the EID block prefix requires reuse of a previously registered EID prefix, then a minimum delay of at least one week between removal and subsequent registration SHOULD be applied by the registry operator.

It seems the preference here is that no addresses be reallocated unless the block assigned has been exhausted.=C2=A0 Maybe just say th= at?

Eliot
--------------040103040701070100040209-- --v2KSmjFP7rOPNMcL1ptA84RAnOsckLAPa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUjsJjAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozetEIAIlrn7lHwKBg069mWvDpHqmL kGGlOZUyddOnEOHHttLIIkdai7Sds+muQ/4vwsBg/4a1R76xgcYbVyPR3hVjc6nB YMTjim1RBdMgdvahcIdEeWJ81IQe359CLzamIX/iOb/7b0Q/Fg6XQGMcgsIIawQ2 9Rpk8oFHzv3NBpoFVYtsSH+wslP9aw1nXigMLXG5q40X9u5UjDRHR4jMuSB62EzB AZ87jsWZmixPBbPJC0PBau50yF7dvG1y4yS0n0gSW2SPcId6FV+4R3vs1abPDa4i SHIFsFfM63xdNPfP0Z+Rt5YfBHwNu38P6HndqufkJRrHoCh1y4wYW2LkE4W3FDE= =/zT+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --v2KSmjFP7rOPNMcL1ptA84RAnOsckLAPa-- From nobody Mon Dec 15 15:22:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256421A6F93 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPGGc986VDyX for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494851A6FDA for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hn15so5932368igb.7 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lYamwvhP5KaEupFKquphDsFG6nicwdQcFW3YoE2cbJc=; b=iQ/2/d5zsHCkdeKzzFb1EwTCWTnLBFFEwl7WJYkOby1dWX0Si9F2A5X5PYYwX13Wzs 3GieKqwfUrRAwIyQ/OIqguZZ0Il3QOW6DwAJD7ROef8hTfxasMM3Ze1cnYMc5wMXYT/o VQ2AfPvT0PfaxyS5kICIDz96W81IzeFeeDstptJmsaCzsay68F5G6PSFlP5La3JEEZ8V T+v+23n5YRfJ1US/fZZdKd4L6077dLdOC7HN+CaYtk+zcfT0RMYd+VvxgzOSIlaboFlu L2Xqbv3atCme7DJo2k6diNslhdGTfte0Ji7cQeOk5EXdZk9pIgqwBz0I0+ukrYjzlZLx kxmw== X-Received: by 10.50.112.165 with SMTP id ir5mr20438313igb.44.1418685715334; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([50.141.65.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j4sm12061igx.14.2014.12.15.15.21.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:54 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <9D9C61E3-F28D-4AD9-8906-998694C6A1E4@gigix.net> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:21:53 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9D9C61E3-F28D-4AD9-8906-998694C6A1E4@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/H2e5mnQA25shKk7DBeI2g5YHqPU Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Outstanding WG Calls X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:21:58 -0000 > Beside the crypto document there is a call for adoption for the impact = document and a WG last call for the EID block management guidelines. I just went through draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07.txt. Section 3 has some = really good research and is explained well to understand the conclusion = of the research. I applaud the authors for that. A comment or request for a reference, since you are talking about = multicast replication engineering here you may want to add lisp-te as a = reference here: > Even though it is its main goal, LISP is more than just a = scalability > solution, it is also a tool to provide both incoming and outgoing > traffic engineering [S11], can be used as an IPv6 transition at the > routing level, and for inter-domain multicast [RFC6831], > [I-D.coras-lisp-re].=20 You should also add to this: > [I-D.coras-lisp-re] and [CDM12] propose a technique to construct xTR > based inter-domain multicast distribution trees. That there are signaling approaches like you indicated in RFC6831 as = well as using LISP to signal in a reference to lisp-mr-signalling as = well as using a signal-free approach as in lisp-signal-free-multicast. = Those references would prove useful to readers. Other than that, this is a really well written document and ready for = next step IMO. Dino From nobody Tue Dec 16 00:58:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6E11A6FC0 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGRtjSb-KyeM for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 627ED1ACD42 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h11so11508244wiw.1 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=mYVzJ8gM92XXVRIfRpQ4VuKg3LTbgQ9A30f4Y9/1jtQ=; b=KUL1mzjzXehEnm7251x+7JIyW3X9YdZOYzxTUPgoNNTzOnQ7ckf/DwW1mz6FhWcoDR 3IMPZoIuCIE4vsl4bxCNE3w8QwkC4UM4z6/25G9F+GQ+oZuuYw/kwugcLtuKwpc85B/b XC9dNO0b9ijE7MNDHOlbiRtcvDLFxbNDfzfRjuoCxxSGH78x8Q7PPRxNCiG0UEtNthoL 3pf1nc6fLCiiaRV5NmXdUE1COkwN7pvqk5cFbSAHXtY4cj1ZK5Qe9TwGtnRffBSdkVBo zKpAqnOHTfA1mUOXGQ1IJ/j5sAyAPWSM27MLBQNZFEu6gBdL//xwbng6iCERT8xv35D/ lASA== X-Received: by 10.180.93.37 with SMTP id cr5mr2851530wib.76.1418720309712; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from saehrimnir.inria.fr (saehrimnir.inria.fr. [138.96.206.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ce1sm308800wjc.2.2014.12.16.00.58.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:58:29 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:58:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5B9A5920-C170-4D5A-866A-6610CE2ADA9C@gmail.com> References: <9D9C61E3-F28D-4AD9-8906-998694C6A1E4@gigix.net> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Em_HbD08EFJddYU-8tHBcJXcoWc Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Outstanding WG Calls X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:58:34 -0000 Thank you, we will had this to the new version. Florin is already on the = beef :) Damien Saucez On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:21, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Beside the crypto document there is a call for adoption for the = impact document and a WG last call for the EID block management = guidelines. >=20 > I just went through draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07.txt. Section 3 has = some really good research and is explained well to understand the = conclusion of the research. I applaud the authors for that. >=20 > A comment or request for a reference, since you are talking about = multicast replication engineering here you may want to add lisp-te as a = reference here: >=20 >> Even though it is its main goal, LISP is more than just a = scalability >> solution, it is also a tool to provide both incoming and outgoing >> traffic engineering [S11], can be used as an IPv6 transition at the >> routing level, and for inter-domain multicast [RFC6831], >> [I-D.coras-lisp-re].=20 >=20 > You should also add to this: >=20 >> [I-D.coras-lisp-re] and [CDM12] propose a technique to construct xTR >> based inter-domain multicast distribution trees. >=20 > That there are signaling approaches like you indicated in RFC6831 as = well as using LISP to signal in a reference to lisp-mr-signalling as = well as using a signal-free approach as in lisp-signal-free-multicast. = Those references would prove useful to readers. >=20 > Other than that, this is a really well written document and ready for = next step IMO. >=20 > Dino >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Dec 22 07:08:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C0F1A90CF for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4r9e8gWV3d3 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 504E91A1A04 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y19so6905730wgg.28 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=miG5ducCxHv+3f33HOp8zBoshUnjwF357U+a3WCQfrY=; b=DdvsP8Vl3yjqeo1p97FuP5gyyW1A01esnVqwAh55An/VHFkxEdrKo3RKTMSwypspmN BXPfeZjHmF5XltOTJegK3dPKUphT+DB0Ca6ONqkiE5uat25ErqGMyHDNNhYZ53Q00PPz lkPtlB5gyfWAQfNkO+H8NwUkNIotKBMzhLe0lcxs/ItJ8yBWSGqbcwh2nfoMQ30BX/jF FtFbTLGhi9hmI5Fnxo6XGh1fi5UkXPScHF/EY9ays4HcxQitg5Mh/lL5o71gmpMkq09w 2qBFT4bUMZCzUlpnFKuiZ2FgN2Bw39rfyvdCAkZzGXEG39VndBY5OPZNcf0azmBXTdq0 zveA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1hSqShnwM/8NdLLxDwLg/kNOB5h0grZFb+SoExly2IQtuyH7HrqDfaK6UWJ2TNlq6ErwJ X-Received: by 10.180.210.195 with SMTP id mw3mr27838224wic.79.1419260907780; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (host164-112-dynamic.42-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.42.112.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id td6sm13618626wic.15.2014.12.22.07.08.22 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:08:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_17604711-2676-40ED-A9E8-E3FB9B08DDFC" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:08:20 +0100 Message-Id: <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/x6kzktasSgUvI3CbTfCdOYW3LCE Subject: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:08:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_17604711-2676-40ED-A9E8-E3FB9B08DDFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi All, the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call = for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. There was actually very little reaction on this call. Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A = description of the impacts of LISP=E2=80=9D. The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th = January 2015). Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. Thanks Luigi & Joel=20 > On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 = ]=20 > asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on = adoption. >=20 > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the = meeting outcome.=20 > The call ends on December 19th 2014. >=20 > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of = approval or disapproval. >=20 > Recall that: >=20 > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 > modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus = that the content is solid. =20 > Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you = want to see changes to its content. >=20 > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state = your reasons why,=20 > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 > begin a dialog about how best to address them. > =20 > = =20 > Luigi and Joel >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_17604711-2676-40ED-A9E8-E3FB9B08DDFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi All,

the= two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call = for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07.

There was actually very little reaction = on this call.

Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or = another.

Recall = that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A description of the impacts of = LISP=E2=80=9D.

The WG Adoption Call is extended for = another two weeks (until 5th January 2015).

Please take this opportunity to express = your opinion on this document.

Thanks

Luigi & Joel

On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone = <ggx@gigix.net> = wrote:

Hi All,

During the 91st IETF = authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07]&nb= sp;
asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed = consensus on adoption.

This message begins = the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the meeting = outcome.
The call ends on  December 19th = 2014.

Please respond to the LISP mailing = list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

Recall that:

- This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and = the WG is expected to
modify the = document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that the = content is solid.
Therefore, = please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want to see = changes to its content.

- If you have objections to adoption of the document, please = state your reasons why,
and explain = what it would take to address your concerns.

- If you have issues with the content, = by all means raise those issues and we can
begin a dialog about how best to address them.
=
= = = = = =
Luigi and Joel

= --Apple-Mail=_17604711-2676-40ED-A9E8-E3FB9B08DDFC-- From nobody Mon Dec 22 07:14:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2312F1A1A04 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:14:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KMy65QWZxVg5 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:13:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 678EB1A19F8 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:13:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341C11BC0FCB for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:13:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-121.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 669E61BC1040 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:13:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:12:54 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LISP mailing list list References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> In-Reply-To: <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/oYj0_Ttlnd5KxGz1HRnXm57M370 Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:14:00 -0000 To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to address the milestone. 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to address the milestone. 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to do this. If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what "different" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, but even just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us understand your opposition. If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more time than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what looks to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. Speak up, please. Yours, Joel On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call > for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. > > There was actually very little reaction on this call. > > Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. > > Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A > description of the impacts of LISP”. > > The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th > January 2015). > > Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. > > Thanks > > Luigi & Joel > >> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone > > wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >> adoption. >> >> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >> meeting outcome. >> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >> >> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >> approval or disapproval. >> >> Recall that: >> >> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >> expected to >> modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that the >> content is solid. >> Therefore, please don’t oppose adoption just because you want to see >> changes to its content. >> >> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >> your reasons why, >> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >> >> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >> and we can >> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >> Luigi and Joel >> >> > From nobody Mon Dec 22 07:15:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136F61A9091 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0_NDbQBYORVS for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C1E1A8F4D for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l15so8231615wiw.10 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=rGWGmZU81/D7K46A9jIWM4UYQID8xM28kJd0ZtXj88A=; b=H0uOokxsXE5G9q4UNwdwv6LezK0yBlYG4zG/hOT/l/J7fXHjm4EiRw9s89tTKAuAbM 09OcnHiiUjNsTWb+WobWZdWUWhq6fJtz1DHVGlIwm0OIUmz4c6gA8ome2kUAvylWC4+1 AWgjXJph01V25+fK6UJ3lyEM4ABzNvqnV3HQ/c1nKJguIzIYnHgnZI5dzaDSmGEAV+J8 LRG1UtSCK/tWrgNtefDan+ReSFIHkOmkTxCKNTtpW1JnzTgmBPBBI7QomY1MteC5EKRa B++4olHMS1rNekMzVPe25NKi2FlPq5DzAMGtO90gplTSIxJT27nB+6W0oolT84YkO7+C X9UA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0KC7e9gnk9T+PUkOILet9xdoUhp79pbNIAWuM2SfJre7n/IW7aYPsbFjpbM6tyRokRLFU X-Received: by 10.194.92.148 with SMTP id cm20mr43702332wjb.88.1419261307563; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (host164-112-dynamic.42-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.42.112.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gu5sm6131169wib.24.2014.12.22.07.15.05 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:15:06 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:15:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <978F583F-F4A1-4186-8A34-AEF448C5976D@gigix.net> References: To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3hEz6uhhAUHguGg1tM7mSuiP7kM Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:15:13 -0000 Hi All, the two weeks WG Adoption Call is now over for = draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01. =46rom the exchange on the mailing list we gather that there is = consensus on the crypto mechanism itself, but more work is needed on the = header encoding. Hence, the document is adopted as WG item, but authors are encouraged to = contact who raised concerns about the header encoding so to work = together at a viable solution. Thanks all for the work done. Luigi=20 > On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01]=20 > asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on = adoption. >=20 > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the = meeting outcome.=20 > The call ends on December 19th 2014. >=20 > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of = approval or disapproval. >=20 > Recall that: >=20 > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 > modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus = that the content is solid. =20 > Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want = to see changes to its content. >=20 > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state = your reasons why,=20 > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 > begin a dialog about how best to address them. >=20 >=20 > Luigi and Joel >=20 From nobody Mon Dec 22 07:20:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DC01A9113 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:20:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsWY3H4ngj86 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:20:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 033D41A9107 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r20so10771298wiv.2 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:19:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=Vzc99Af3H5amRGVWjkdSQAAXJk3zptUCy8nWYOCv2rQ=; b=CGSLpp+EkkHsFFOoathQXlBiSec1ML4wvxFu0zmqiDh4PBa6MES0gwL91Q4wTrnpJt HrRuQ5UeIrDkAU6ar6FUn0FMF+PQLtkjgDon/zEyovBVDv5GReaNXS4omca29FeK93/E lLfQ7qJHAsUhhRx08/s/RGvNiMODoVGVm+/rPL5PM6xuz6pB20NTX78CGHPeP3S/Dfgk taQkCB3ermnoGnYrjCR/JOFK+PWS1lqrZasoSviDPjLQP/r1DjZpAYzW1H1aX0hRAHo0 a19Obdy748xbd2FV3gnZBdYqp8q4ArCKg9ezEZ/b/Oqi+H3PJoyEmQT3O27vxN4QUjDc 6+eQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKylDlHNzlJZ608Gio16gMwA+FRs8SIP6PFpzg3Z8WDlLzCedQ9BV5Q4CRmZif+0bUQaZR X-Received: by 10.194.2.178 with SMTP id 18mr42710317wjv.67.1419261593693; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (host164-112-dynamic.42-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.42.112.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm13682179wie.1.2014.12.22.07.19.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:19:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1728C0A1-4B3D-474A-9FA5-F26871EC5E54" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:19:48 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3aiwhsftCFCqzv4tSZ9dUXZT_7c Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:20:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1728C0A1-4B3D-474A-9FA5-F26871EC5E54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, the WG LC for draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 is now closed. =46rom the activity in the mailing list it seems that there is consensus = to move the document forward. Few very minor corrections have been requested, which will be fixed by = the authors via a new version of the document. The shepherd will update the writeup and then send it to the IESG. Thanks all for the work done. Luigi & Joel=20 > On 04 Dec 2014, at 14:33, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines = document,=20 > with the submission of the -03 version = [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt = ], > the work seems done and no further issues are pending. > During the 91st IETF meeting the authors requested to resume the WG = Last Call. >=20 > This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December 19th, 2014. >=20 > Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you = agree that it is ready for handing to the AD. > If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain = what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Luigi & Joel >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_1728C0A1-4B3D-474A-9FA5-F26871EC5E54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi All,

the= WG LC for draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 is now closed.

=46rom the activity in = the mailing list it seems that there is consensus to move the document = forward.

Few = very minor corrections have been requested, which will be fixed by the = authors via a new version of the document.

The shepherd will update the writeup = and then send it to the IESG.

Thanks all for the work done.

Luigi & = Joel

On 04 Dec 2014, at 14:33, Luigi = Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:

Hi All,

After the final re-wording of the EID Block = Management Guidelines document,
with the submission = of the -03 version [http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt],
the work seems done and no further issues are = pending.
During the 91st IETF meeting the authors = requested to resume the WG Last Call.

This email starts a 14 day WG Last Call, to end December = 19th, 2014.

Please review this updated WG = document and let the WG know if you agree that it is ready for handing = to the AD.
If you have objections, please state = your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your = concerns.

Thanks

Luigi & Joel

= --Apple-Mail=_1728C0A1-4B3D-474A-9FA5-F26871EC5E54-- From nobody Mon Dec 22 08:51:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA6A1A1A8A for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifWH-EWjTjD4 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 800D21A1A88 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id lf10so6212747pab.19 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VSxM1iRQugA60JSHF98vndGBi1g5iDvOWLcqBDLzIXA=; b=F8TT6jfY/x9DqVeaQuIAEafenDLYGITmqn3mlPZzPr8kOt5oM4WkM9WBe3LsiN2/YR WP6mta6UKIoBsgdIkpb41EZ7e3FsbL5VASZ5QhBHnhIIyMjmHZzvxep1+ll5hFw5PN8L JeaiFM6qRbFvzL1Tex3VOZPDAqUHVlcizJC/pBN7Tgvg+AoarnjLI2szxk1RmfMe1ZlD y3IYq7MdPfB03+/6vQQMvrowAG75RWq086UunUefK4GVqPs8ylClnCj+drWA4blSDwvV lKnDJX2XX6g810EdH+ogpS2V50jfbGZyb1Hp0lQHQTAg69xETjPj8KFNgNGpj19XpsuP nCtQ== X-Received: by 10.70.41.134 with SMTP id f6mr36462816pdl.25.1419267070686; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.84] ([207.145.253.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fu1sm17616875pbb.91.2014.12.22.08.51.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:51:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <13346F57-8C24-4455-8501-EEE7DFD86AFB@gmail.com> References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/XnWgKl8k2yC6yfN47ZFT8Xh7yyU Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:51:13 -0000 I like option (1) and think the document should be adopted. Dino > On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern = wrote: >=20 > To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: > 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action = to address the milestone. > 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to = address the milestone. > 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to = do this. >=20 > If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. > If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what = "different" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, = but even just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us = understand your opposition. > If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more = time than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what = looks to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. >=20 > Speak up, please. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >>=20 >> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption = Call >> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >>=20 >> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >>=20 >> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >>=20 >> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >> description of the impacts of LISP=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >> January 2015). >>=20 >> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this = document. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Luigi & Joel >>=20 >>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >> > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi All, >>>=20 >>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>> adoption. >>>=20 >>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm = the >>> meeting outcome. >>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>>=20 >>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>> approval or disapproval. >>>=20 >>> Recall that: >>>=20 >>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>> expected to >>> modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus = that the >>> content is solid. >>> Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you = want to see >>> changes to its content. >>>=20 >>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>> your reasons why, >>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>>=20 >>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues >>> and we can >>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>> Luigi and Joel >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Dec 22 09:43:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFD81AC39B for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:43:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2WP2txeDt0m for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0531AC39A for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:43:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3487; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419270213; x=1420479813; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hPMnrnToPcL0OU94MIPPXmvOV1qsT99t/VZnVt5Z/+M=; b=Q8nwjgjXwh/Aw9fNiFxyQY2YP6PcyIH5/j1ZEiD+zUOBZXCH/NRf9hEM stdbbct8TLxt7hsHZL9TLVo7VSbD7n7YhG6uR615mrDFwarOV3IH0bc9b 7YtgqEggK4/6Yk3UzNxZ2fSrMQ0M+jA4Dkc2fUu4FqxTXfgiq3ESf8x2A 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmgFAPhXmFStJV2R/2dsb2JhbABbgwZSWMY/CoVwAoEaFgEBAQEBfYQMAQEBAwEBAQEaUQsFCwIBCBgnByEGCxQRAgQOBYgYAwkIDcpaDYU/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSNSoF1MweDFoETBY4Rgz6DcIFEgQ2CZIgFghyDOSKDbm+CQwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,625,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="382310041" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2014 17:43:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBMHhTOp027673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:43:29 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.252]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:43:29 -0600 From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" To: Dino Farinacci Thread-Topic: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQHgeH7IW0E19ENUyvFSvTOAfjzJyb4Yaj Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com>, <13346F57-8C24-4455-8501-EEE7DFD86AFB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <13346F57-8C24-4455-8501-EEE7DFD86AFB@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JDA2eOCeSxJMVt6CT2_9j_SPu30 Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:43:35 -0000 + 1 Victor > On Dec 22, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > I like option (1) and think the document should be adopted. >=20 > Dino >=20 >> On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote= : >>=20 >> To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: >> 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to= address the milestone. >> 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to addr= ess the milestone. >> 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to d= o this. >>=20 >> If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. >> If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what "dif= ferent" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, but ev= en just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us understand = your opposition. >> If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more t= ime than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what looks = to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. >>=20 >> Speak up, please. >>=20 >> Yours, >> Joel >>=20 >>> On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>> Hi All, >>>=20 >>> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >>> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >>>=20 >>> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >>>=20 >>> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >>>=20 >>> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >>> description of the impacts of LISP=94. >>>=20 >>> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >>> January 2015). >>>=20 >>> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Luigi & Joel >>>=20 >>>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >>> > wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hi All, >>>>=20 >>>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>>> adoption. >>>>=20 >>>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>>> meeting outcome. >>>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>>>=20 >>>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>>> approval or disapproval. >>>>=20 >>>> Recall that: >>>>=20 >>>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>>> expected to >>>> modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that the >>>> content is solid. >>>> Therefore, please don=92t oppose adoption just because you want to see >>>> changes to its content. >>>>=20 >>>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>>> your reasons why, >>>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>>>=20 >>>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >>>> and we can >>>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>>> Luigi and Joel >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Dec 22 10:08:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04641A1B75 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:08:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbnUhF4miDw6 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:08:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D52DC1A1B69 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:08:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4230; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419271727; x=1420481327; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=74lNf0+umjiTHKmrrZXcM7YJAJ2yX/C5QGo9Vs++xVU=; b=JSKgFkJ9JOAmTeGvniKgEiNA6ZRP8OZdABNvuox4tP8oiD+4OqokYfVJ 6aUyMZ6Jf0fHDx7XHMWnTQGO1QWVnmQIkOiUZUDlR/a4+orcMnaiDcV58 SMqpxmEVGlPCefi7Bk6OQsNi360BRUe/1IU5dawEie1Z92WM3l7OFcYnE s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmkFAMhdmFStJV2U/2dsb2JhbABYA4MGUlgExjsKhXACgRsWAQEBAQF9hA0BAQQBAQEaUQsOAgIBCBgnBxsGBgsUEQIEAQ0FG4d9AxENymoNhT8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgEjUaBdSMQAgURhBgFhRWECYMcgVeDPoNwgUSBDTCCNIgFghyDOSKDbm8BgUR+AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,625,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="382317349" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2014 18:08:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBMI8kNV027850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:08:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.83]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:08:46 -0600 From: "Chad Hintz (chahintz)" To: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" , Dino Farinacci Thread-Topic: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQHgeHcvufsRbznkOTMZ1eTwYLspycRhuA//+zPYA= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> <13346F57-8C24-4455-8501-EEE7DFD86AFB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [10.117.148.7] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <1CCE5E5D60D61B4DAD286E648064A2FC@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/t1_EYMeSeKffuZkddlDkmmpj8jg Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:08:50 -0000 Agree with Victor and Dino. Chad Hintz Technical Solutions Architect Commercial East Area Cisco Systems, Inc. United States Cisco.com Phone: +1-716-446-5312 chahintz@cisco.com CCIE - 15729 =20 Twitter:@chadh0517Blog:dcnextgen.blogspot.com "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" -Leonardo da Vinci=20 On 12/22/14, 12:43 PM, "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" wrote: >+ 1 > >Victor > >> On Dec 22, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Dino Farinacci >>wrote: >>=20 >> I like option (1) and think the document should be adopted. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern >>>wrote: >>>=20 >>> To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: >>> 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action >>>to address the milestone. >>> 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to >>>address the milestone. >>> 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to >>>do this. >>>=20 >>> If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. >>> If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what >>>"different" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a >>>date, but even just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would >>>help us understand your opposition. >>> If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more >>>time than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what >>>looks to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. >>>=20 >>> Speak up, please. >>>=20 >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>>=20 >>>> On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>>=20 >>>> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >>>> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >>>>=20 >>>> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >>>>=20 >>>> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >>>>=20 >>>> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >>>> description of the impacts of LISP=B2. >>>>=20 >>>> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >>>> January 2015). >>>>=20 >>>> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks >>>>=20 >>>> Luigi & Joel >>>>=20 >>>>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >>>> > wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi All, >>>>>=20 >>>>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>>>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>>>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>>>> adoption. >>>>>=20 >>>>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>>>> meeting outcome. >>>>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>>>> approval or disapproval. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Recall that: >>>>>=20 >>>>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>>>> expected to >>>>> modify the document=B9s content until there is WG consensus that the >>>>> content is solid. >>>>> Therefore, please don=B9t oppose adoption just because you want to se= e >>>>> changes to its content. >>>>>=20 >>>>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>>>> your reasons why, >>>>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>>>>=20 >>>>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those >>>>>issues >>>>> and we can >>>>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>>>> Luigi and Joel >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > >_______________________________________________ >lisp mailing list >lisp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Dec 22 11:39:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8EF1A6FB2 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:39:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsrFMPxWRRJF for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0635.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE57F1A6F56 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:39:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.161.250.141) by DB4PR06MB0911.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.161.250.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:35:51 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.250.141]) by DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.250.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:35:50 +0000 From: Sharon Barkai To: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" Thread-Topic: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQHgeGi+EL4oDMKU2hVopI6RblaZyb4YaAgAAfZgk= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: <525C8DAA-5FD9-4DAE-85E3-F680601FA3CE@Contextream.com> References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com>, <13346F57-8C24-4455-8501-EEE7DFD86AFB@gmail.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.22.28.27] authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Sharon@Contextream.com; x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB0911; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB0911; x-forefront-prvs: 0433DB2766 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(24454002)(53754006)(479174004)(377454003)(189002)(51704005)(199003)(76176999)(33656002)(106116001)(19580405001)(106356001)(19580395003)(82746002)(97736003)(40100003)(105586002)(120916001)(2950100001)(62966003)(36756003)(15975445007)(77156002)(99396003)(110136001)(230783001)(92566001)(46102003)(68736005)(122556002)(102836002)(87936001)(2900100001)(54356999)(2656002)(50986999)(93886004)(31966008)(83716003)(107046002)(4396001)(101416001)(21056001)(86362001)(64706001)(20776003)(66066001)(104396002)(80792004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0911; H:DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: Contextream.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Contextream.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Dec 2014 19:35:50.5394 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 31ea6a41-1b19-4e44-95ed-6c61c89a1582 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0911 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/WiThw3ywmzDmFunX3PID74g1qPo Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:39:42 -0000 ++ for 1 --szb On Dec 22, 2014, at 09:43, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) wr= ote: + 1 Victor > On Dec 22, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > I like option (1) and think the document should be adopted. >=20 > Dino >=20 >> On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote= : >>=20 >> To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: >> 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to= address the milestone. >> 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to addr= ess the milestone. >> 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to d= o this. >>=20 >> If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. >> If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what "dif= ferent" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, but ev= en just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us understand = your opposition. >> If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more t= ime than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what looks = to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. >>=20 >> Speak up, please. >>=20 >> Yours, >> Joel >>=20 >>> On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>> Hi All, >>>=20 >>> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >>> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >>>=20 >>> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >>>=20 >>> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >>>=20 >>> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >>> description of the impacts of LISP=94. >>>=20 >>> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >>> January 2015). >>>=20 >>> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Luigi & Joel >>>=20 >>>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >>> > wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hi All, >>>>=20 >>>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>>> adoption. >>>>=20 >>>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>>> meeting outcome. >>>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>>>=20 >>>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>>> approval or disapproval. >>>>=20 >>>> Recall that: >>>>=20 >>>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>>> expected to >>>> modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that the >>>> content is solid. >>>> Therefore, please don=92t oppose adoption just because you want to see >>>> changes to its content. >>>>=20 >>>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>>> your reasons why, >>>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>>>=20 >>>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >>>> and we can >>>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>>> Luigi and Joel >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Dec 23 08:06:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080381A90D3 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:06:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R02A6VX2lYF7 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B5A1A90DB for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:06:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3043; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419350783; x=1420560383; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yg/fdPdfo9AzezarvC8h57EobQzVYcVY2XrJ4cJs3v0=; b=HxATNN0ybLqqjWQnzg89+5Y83MallRn+Ry4XtA42fKMDs6+7iJEpS0Jg aOE1Z9PWn6xs2LocMpzqoBS1hY0ztrWutVQfBLy6LF1+GgGSdB6oHySyj MUd/j6vxrcYfP5jE0APAWlfN7QBZlVE26OYb2A4Y5AOtFFShw0TptR9Ez k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFALeSmVStJA2I/2dsb2JhbABbgwZSWIMEwzIKhXACgRkWAQEBAQF9hA0BAQQBAQEaBg8BBTYKEQsYAgIFFggDAgIJAwIBAgEVHxETBgIBAYgoDbhJlgIBAQEBBgEBAQEaBIEhjliCaIFBBYlKgnOFFoU0gQ2CZYISiBGDOSKEDx0xgkMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,632,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="107842459" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Dec 2014 16:06:10 +0000 Received: from [10.24.167.120] ([10.24.167.120]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBNG68Wt030826 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:06:09 GMT Message-ID: <549992F9.7090004@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:06:17 -0800 From: Fabio Maino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp@ietf.org References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/0H2gtEN1mg9bdwQh4aolGjDiPoo Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:06:31 -0000 I support option 1. Fabio On 12/22/14, 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: > 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action > to address the milestone. > 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to > address the milestone. > 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to > do this. > > If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. > If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what > "different" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a > date, but even just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would > help us understand your opposition. > If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more > time than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what > looks to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. > > Speak up, please. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >> >> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >> >> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >> >> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >> description of the impacts of LISP”. >> >> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >> January 2015). >> >> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >> >> Thanks >> >> Luigi & Joel >> >>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>> adoption. >>> >>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>> meeting outcome. >>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>> >>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>> approval or disapproval. >>> >>> Recall that: >>> >>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>> expected to >>> modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that the >>> content is solid. >>> Therefore, please don’t oppose adoption just because you want to see >>> changes to its content. >>> >>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>> your reasons why, >>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>> >>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >>> and we can >>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>> Luigi and Joel >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Dec 29 13:25:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248A91A90FE for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:25:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqUveOpVR_fi for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F36C1A908B for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3132; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419888331; x=1421097931; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zShqjSx3OuGO3WxYiPKfJLh9YxArmHrWJZNL1U1WuuM=; b=aFRncuz3BtyCgt3iOKBn5WBdYoiTkudmZ/UAFqTjfHRHtBOFI7OK/HzR KbZv8bJDGGsnmknY5Oz3a7qKymkxBJp+H+EelnTPP7wZoAii0J5jSM8i2 MjVZTHs21huNudLHpoZKTVQ3Dza8sIXQkHoHcrViwY3c8Yv/vNgugHIyd 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkQFAILGoVStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABcgwZSWATGYgqFeAKBDRYBAQEBAX2EDAEBAQMBAQEBGlELBQsCAQgYJwcnCxQRAgQOBYgkCA3CXAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEj0QzB4MWgRMFjhWDP4U0gQ2CZYolgzkig25vgUV+AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,661,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="383272960" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2014 21:25:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBTLPATl020811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:25:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.86]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:25:10 -0600 From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" To: "Joel M. Halpern" Thread-Topic: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQI63s9/M7YXR50kizcwbn42Weeg== Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:25:09 +0000 Message-ID: <180E6B00-C9A8-44F1-A2F2-F3A6A02D3CD9@cisco.com> References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.253.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HvTTts2Dq7Kq7vjcEGzXf-pAcPQ Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:25:33 -0000 I support option #1. -D On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: > 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to = address the milestone. > 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to addre= ss the milestone. > 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to do= this. >=20 > If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. > If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what "diff= erent" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, but eve= n just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us understand y= our opposition. > If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more ti= me than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what looks t= o the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. >=20 > Speak up, please. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >>=20 >> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >>=20 >> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >>=20 >> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >>=20 >> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >> description of the impacts of LISP=94. >>=20 >> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >> January 2015). >>=20 >> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Luigi & Joel >>=20 >>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >> > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi All, >>>=20 >>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>> adoption. >>>=20 >>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>> meeting outcome. >>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>>=20 >>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>> approval or disapproval. >>>=20 >>> Recall that: >>>=20 >>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>> expected to >>> modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that the >>> content is solid. >>> Therefore, please don=92t oppose adoption just because you want to see >>> changes to its content. >>>=20 >>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>> your reasons why, >>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>>=20 >>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >>> and we can >>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>> Luigi and Joel >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Dec 30 01:46:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3481ACEEE; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:46:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8g8cMcA425M; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587C11A0041; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:46:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141230094621.4064.53012.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:46:21 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/DDRMM11QrJYlqc4ZPyb0-qBRGZw Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-11.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:46:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP Threats Analysis Authors : Damien Saucez Luigi Iannone Olivier Bonaventure Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-threats-11.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2014-12-30 Abstract: This document proposes a threat analysis of the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-threats/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-threats-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-threats-11 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Dec 30 13:43:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C281A875C for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfGG0UEjIP1l for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A941A1BB5 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sBULhgKl026580; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 22:43:42 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [89.123.106.73]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 538109DC; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 22:43:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54A31C8B.9000908@lispmob.org> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 23:43:39 +0200 From: Lori Jakab Organization: LISPmob MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" , LISP mailing list list References: <2529C978-FA62-47B0-A223-0B85276DC2D3@gigix.net> <40D65A23-0FB0-4D1B-BC87-367AE8367541@gigix.net> <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <549834F6.1090609@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/XuEbcHpg_01XeK8IaxubPpx3qHw Subject: Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:43:48 -0000 Hi, I support option #1. -Lori On 12/22/2014 05:12 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: > 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to > address the milestone. > 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to > address the milestone. > 3) We can go fight about whether this matters because we don't want to > do this. > > If you like option (1), tell us you want the document adopted. > If you like option (2), please say so and give us some idea of what > "different" looks like. Best if you offer to provide a draft by a date, > but even just a paragraph or two on what "different" is would help us > understand your opposition. > If you like (3), please explain. That path seems likely to waste more > time than producing a good document. Particularly since we have what > looks to the chairs like a very good start on this deliverable. > > Speak up, please. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/22/14 10:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> the two weeks have elapsed since the beginning of the WG Adoption Call >> for draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07. >> >> There was actually very little reaction on this call. >> >> Silence does not help to make a decision, one way or another. >> >> Recall that our charter explicitly state that we will work on "A >> description of the impacts of LISP”. >> >> The WG Adoption Call is extended for another two weeks (until 5th >> January 2015). >> >> Please take this opportunity to express your opinion on this document. >> >> Thanks >> >> Luigi & Joel >> >>> On 04 Dec 2014, at 12:27, Luigi Iannone >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> During the 91st IETF authors of the draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 >>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07] >>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on >>> adoption. >>> >>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm the >>> meeting outcome. >>> The call ends on December 19th 2014. >>> >>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of >>> approval or disapproval. >>> >>> Recall that: >>> >>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is >>> expected to >>> modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that the >>> content is solid. >>> Therefore, please don’t oppose adoption just because you want to see >>> changes to its content. >>> >>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state >>> your reasons why, >>> and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >>> >>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues >>> and we can >>> begin a dialog about how best to address them. >>> Luigi and Joel >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Wed Dec 31 08:21:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087E21A9150; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:21:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HbXRffThtWus; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF55B1A0100; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:21:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141231162137.4775.30590.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:21:37 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Co81u77vjIcQ2yWhAX9SlUdW_y8 Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:21:39 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP EID Block Management Guidelines Authors : Luigi Iannone Roger Jorgensen David Conrad Geoff Huston Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2014-12-31 Abstract: This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID Prefix. The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes of such space to requesting organizations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/