If the items are unrelated why should they go to 2 different document, knowing that are not related to the data-plane neither ?
L. > On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:58, 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
