Subject: [lisp] Issue Title (number): Re-encapsulating Tunnels underspecefied (112)

From: Darrel Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:12:12 -0700

Issue Title (number): Re-encapsulating Tunnels underspecefied (112)
Draft Section: 4-5?
Issue Description:
Comments:

The draft does not provide sufficient details on the use of
re-encapsulation. The draft should either provide sufficient details
on the use of re-encapsulation, or remove all references to
re-encapsulation from the draft.

Dear Yakov-

Thank you for your contribution to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt. The draft authors
have reviewed your comments but are cannot determine whether changes should
be made to the document. The authors want to allow for the possibility
of LISP-TE, since inter-AS announcement of more specific prefixes for TE purposes is a large minority of the total DFZ's prefixes.  We'd like to see more discussion of this topic and perhaps that discussion could be captured in a usage/deployment document. 
Please bring this issue to the LISP working group mailing list, 
[email-masked], for further discussion. Should the WG reach consensus 
that changes are required, the authors will incorporate appropriate
text into a future version of the draft.

	Thanks!
	Darrel, for the LISP document authors