Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-11: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Prasad, all, Many thanks for the follow-up. The changes made in [1] addresses almost all the points raised in my previous ballot [2]. The only pending one is the following comment. Your proposed approach would work although I have a preferrence if this is covered in the doc itself. That's said, I hope this can be addressed before (or as part of) 8378bis: ...... from OLD Ballot ..... # Multiple LISP Multicast Solutions: Need for clear applicability/positioning There are at least two approaches to provide multicast in LISP: 6831 and 8378 both were experimental. I see that the WG is also working on RFC8378bis. Each of those have deployment assumptions either on the underlying network or the Mapping System. It seems that both mechanisms were deployed (as gleaned in this document), which is great. However, I’m missing a discussion in both documents about the target applicability of each. Having a brief text (common to both -bis document) would help fix the this. Better, based on the experience gained with both mechanisms, it would be helpful to have some guidance when the optimization in 8378 would be sufficient (for cases with uLISP). GVP1> Thanks for the comment, this is very insightful. A few observations for your consideration: to my knowledge RFC6831 implementations are far ahead in implementation compared to RFC8378. Agreed both are in -bis stages now in the PS track, but the maturity of RFC6831 (deployment in particular) far exceeds RFC8378. Having said this, what you suggest is a very important aspect to be covered, my only request is we do it in a separate document rather than doing it in the respective -bis documents (6831-bis and 8378-bis). I hope this is reasonable to you. Kindly let me know ...... Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-07&url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-11&difftype=--html [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/9QhERy5nm2at5vXFP5CJ61Rpd5Y/ _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
