> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:13, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the problem is that RFC6830bis has too narrow a definition of > “data-plane”. I believe you think it as the sole purpose of forwarding data > packets. I view it as the “nodes that make up the data-plane” should be part > of that. > > Having said that, the Deployment section is saying where xTRs go and why. The > Mobility section is saying where EIDs and RLOCs are and off often the can > change. Both of these sections has nothing to do with control-plane and hence > they shouldn’t go in RFC6833bis but should not go into a OAM document either. > > The Traceroute section is probably the only section that should go in a > document titled “OAM”. But what is the cost of putting just this section in a > document? >
p.s. I will not answer this part of the email because we are far over the discussion and I don’t want to open it again. Let move on as planned. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
