Tommy Jensen has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I strongly support Gorry's DISCUSS, and would like to provide an additional example of the lack of normative guidance that I think makes this unready for publication as Proposed Standard (but is otherwise not a distinct DISCUSS from Gorry's, hence No Objection). Section 10 is almost the same as the original experimental version and says when RFC 3956 is in use that: > it is the responsibility of ETRs in multicast receiver > sites to map the group address into a group address where the > Embedded-RP address is from the RLOC namespace. The mapped RP > address is obtained from an EID-to-RLOC mapping database lookup. While I saw there are implementations of RFC 6831, draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-deploy does not mention anyone supporting RFC 3956. Has Section 10 been exercised? By whom? This seems like a lot to leave up to implementers as written. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
