Thanks Padma, I will update the spec this week. Dino
> On Jun 2, 2024, at 10:40 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello Authors and all. > > Thanks for your patience. > > First of all - I think the document describes a useful feature in LISP. Thank > you for writing this doc. > > I reviewed this document after reading the ELP definition in RFC8060 section > 4.6. > My overall comment is that I was expecting the detailed processing of the ELP > as RFC8060 references this document for "details". Therefore, I find that > the document would be improved if section 5 had detailed processing for all > cases. I have flagged in the document where some processing should be > included in different steps. > Here are major suggestions > - proposed a compromise to make the document clearer on figure 1 and figure 2 > and text associated. > - proposed to beef up section 5 need to add processing of L, S, P bits but > more importantly perhaps give the processing with the combinations of bits. > > I am attaching the diffs in PDF format as requested in exchanges. If > inconvenient. I can transform the comments in txt. > > Let me know if you have any questions > > Thanks > Padma > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:33 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hello Dino and al > > I will review the doc, comments, exchanges and get back to the list. > Thanks for your patience > > Padma > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:31 PM Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is correct. > > Dino > > > On May 30, 2024, at 9:53 AM, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > > > The question, as I understand it, is not what you want Dino. Nor is it > > what Luigi wants. It is what the working group wants. I gather that Padma > > has the task of figuring that out. Good luck Padma. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 5/30/2024 12:17 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On May 30, 2024, at 6:07 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dino, > >>> > >>> Private emails, with insulting content, will not help progress the > >>> document. > >> > >> I didn’t insult you. I made a conclusion you didn’t understand something > >> since I repeated the explanation several times. > >> > >>> > >>> Since apparently we are not able to converge, my co-chair Padma accepted > >>> to handle this document from now on. > >> > >> Just because commenters have comments doesn’t mean all of them need > >> fixing. And we need to agree to disagree. > >> > >>> > >>> Please wait her review of the draft. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> As a participant of the LISP WG, and with no hats on, my concerns remain > >>> unaddressed (despite proposing very detailed and easy fixes). > >>> > >>> Second example in section 4 remains unclear and misleading. See: > >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/CzJjLCgCZquCPOkhv56-q3DZTRE/ > >>> > >>> The general organisation of the document can be improved. > >>> As of now it is a bunch of use cases where for each one we see the same > >>> structure: > >>> > >>> Here is a cool thing you can do using LISP ELPs…. > >>> In order to do it you MUST do this or SHOULD do that….. > >>> > >>> In other words the specifications that need to be implemented are > >>> scattered all over the document. The risk is that people interested in > >>> one single use case will implement only part of the specs. > >> > >> I implemented it and so did cisco with no problems. > >> > >>> My suggestion is to move a few paragraph in one single place so to have > >>> the document organized in two main parts: A section with all the > >>> specifications; A section with all the use cases. > >>> My first review included detailed suggestions of the few simple cut & > >>> paste to be done: > >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3zIUevHl8ZbqfKgwjXhJ8Z-FUlA/ > >> > >> Yes I know what you commented on. I don’t want to make the changes. I want > >> to focus on all the documents that I am responsible for and this document > >> is just not as important as the other ones. > >> > >> We have a real deadline now. I won’t be doing IETF after 2025. So now we > >> have to be laser focused and not take > 5 years to move documents forward. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org > >> > > <draft-ietf-lisp-te-16-ppe.pdf> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
