Hi I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a > document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the > odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results in a document without clear focus. Kind regards Albert On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a > document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the > odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" < > lisp-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute > considerations”. > > > > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any > objection or you have a better name to suggest. > > I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one > document) but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after > the meeting today. > > He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis > and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can > be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”. > > Wonder how people would feel about that? > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
