Subject: [lisp] Issue Title (number): Map Reply Consistency (47, 48, 49, 50)

From: Darrel Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:48:06 -0700

There are 4 very closely related issues about Map-Reply consistency.  See below for details.

-------------
Issue Title (number):  Map Reply Consistency (47)
Draft Section: ?
Issue Description: Map Reply - Ambiguous Text

Comments:

Ambiguity related to the existence (or not) of a clear requirements that all entities that return MAP-Replies for a given EID return the same content?

Recommended Action:  Add text explaining consistency (wg mail thread has details) This is related to issue 48 and 49, 50.

-----------------------
Issue Title (number):  Map Replies with Different Content (48)
Draft Section: ?
Issue Description: ITR handling of Map-Replies

Comments:

What are the consequences if two entities do return MAP-replies with different contents for a given EID?

-----------------------
Issue Title (number):  Map Replies with Different Content (49)
Draft Section: ?
Issue Description: ITR handling of Map-Replies

Comments:

If MAP-Replies content for a given EID are not supposed to change then what is the content that is allowed to vary (Locator status bits?)

-----------------------
Issue Title (number):  Map Replies with Different Content (50)
Draft Section: ?
Issue Description: xTR handling of Map-Replies

Comments:

If MAP-Replies content for a given EID are not supposed to change then what is the content that MUST be invariant?

--------------------

Dear Yakov-

Thank you for your contribution to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt. The draft authors have changed 
the text accordingly.  We added clarifying language in section 6.1.5 about Map-Replying 
to Data Probes or Map-Requests. We believe these text changes have resolved this issue, 
but if you feel that further changes are warranted please bring this issue to the LISP 
working group mailing list, [email-masked], for further discussion. 

	Thanks!
	Darrel, for the LISP document authors