Subject: [lisp] Updates for draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:21:56 -0700

With roughly 48 hours left in the draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt review  
period, we have received numerous comments on the spec. Thanks to the  
commenters for your responses.

Here are the new changes added as a result of the comments during this  
comment period:

    o  Numerous wordsmithing changes from Dave Meyer.  He fine toothed
       combed the spec.

    o  Removed Section 14 "Prototype Plans and Status".  We felt this
       type of section is no longer appropriate for a protocol
       specification.

    o  Add clarification text for the IRC description per Damien's
       commentary.

    o  Remove text on copying nonce from SMR to SMR-invoked Map- Request
       per Vina's comment about a possible DoS vector.

    o  Clarify (S/2 + H) in the stateless MTU section.

You can find a diff file (rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-08-to-08.html) comparing  
the ID text submitted at the beginning of the review period with the  
one attached in this email.

You can also find a diff file (rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-07-to-08.html)  
comparing -07 with the the -08 proposed changes attached in this email.

Thanks,
Dino/Dave/Darrel/Vince

---

From: Damien Saucez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:31:14 +0200

Hello,

By reading sec 6.1.2 and B.2, it is no clear if ITR-RLOC MUST be RLOCs
from the RLOC set of the Map-Requester ITR or if they can be from other ITRs.
If RLOC from several ITRs are allowed, then maybe the text should be clearer
to say how to select the source port and how an ITR that has not sent the
request can process the reply (nonce and port).  But is it reasonable to consider
that a reply has to arrive another ITR? Do you have any use case for this? mobility?

6.1.2
 ITR-RLOC Address:  Used to give the ETR the option of selecting the
      destination address from any address family for the Map-Reply
      message.  This address MUST be a routable RLOC address.

B.2

   o  Added multiple ITR-RLOC fields to the Map-Request packet so an ETR
      can decide what address to select for the destination of a Map-
      Reply.

Thanks,

Damien Saucez

On 11 Aug 2010, at 19:21, Dino Farinacci wrote:

> With roughly 48 hours left in the draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt review period, we have received numerous comments on the spec. Thanks to the commenters for your responses.
> 
> Here are the new changes added as a result of the comments during this comment period:
> 
> You can find a diff file (rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-08-to-08.html) comparing the ID text submitted at the beginning of the review period with the one attached in this email.
> 
> You can also find a diff file (rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-07-to-08.html) comparing -07 with the the -08 proposed changes attached in this email.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dino/Dave/Darrel/Vince
> 
> <draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt>
> 
> 
> <rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-08-to-08.html>
> 
> 
> <rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-07-to-08.html>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:02:18 -0700

Well obviously it is from the local requester since it creates the  
nonce it needs to match in the returning Map-Reply. But I will make  
that more clear. Thanks for the comment.

Dino

On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Damien Saucez wrote:

>> period, we have received numerous comments on the spec. Thanks to  
>> the commenters for your responses.
>>
>> You can find a diff file (rfcdiff-ietf-lisp-08-to-08.html)  
>> comparing the ID text submitted at the beginning of the review  
>> period with the one attached in this email.
>>