The text that we seem to be converging on (“…and requires some new functionality such as OAM enhancements and EID to RLOC mapping”) mentions OAM as an *example* of new functionality, and does not claim to have a complete list of new functionality.
Thus to me “RLOC reachability detection” is also a valid example of a new functionality, and may in fact be a better example of a “new functionality” than “OAM” would be (since all networks have always required some form of “OAM”, but not all networks require some form of “RLOC reachability detection”). Thus it seems fine to me to replace “OAM” with “RLOC reachability” in the proposed text. Ross From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:03 AM To: Luigi Iannone Cc: Ross Callon; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02 Parenthesizing "OAM" would be fine with the text I suggest. Dino On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:26, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Ross Callon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Does this sound about right? I think the text you suggest is fine. But we haven't ever used the term "OAM" before. I would like all the documentation to be consistent so would suggest using "RLOC reach ability mechanisms”. Hi Dino, I understand your point, but may be OAM is a more general term that covers the RLOC reachability case. yet, if it is fine with Ross I guess we can use “RLOC reachability”. ciao L. Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
