> On 9 Jan 2018, at 19:00, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Brief reply. > >>>>> >>>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, >>>>> VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP >>>>> control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in their >>>>> data-planes. Hence, why this information is there. >>>> >>>> Doesn’t make sense to me. That is not a reason. >>> >>> It is a reason, maybe one you don’t like, but it is a reason. >>> >> >> The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that >> does not belong to the data-plane. > > The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage the > elements in the map-cache.
You just mixed up data-plane and control plane, hence, would be better move the OAM text > It’s the only place it should go. > >> >> >>>> That information can be available in another document and still be used by >>>> LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane. >>> >>> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a >>> control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830. >>> >> >> We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and >> easier to read. > > >> >> >> [snip] >>> >>>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point describing >>>>>> what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear. >>>>> >>>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell me why >>>>> you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say >>>>> what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then we move to >>>>> RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else. >>>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details. >>> >>> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I’m not going to change >>> it. >>> >> >> Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert. > > Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 > text. Please read reply to Albert. > >>> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent >>> effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don’t want to repeat text >>> as you suggested above. >>> >> >> The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the >> text again to make sure nothing has been lost. > > Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 > text. Please read reply to Albert. > >> As I suggested in first mail: >> >> We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce, >> >> We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing > > Sorry, I can’t follow these references. Please read reply to Albert and my original review. Thanks L. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
