HI all,
We think that we can move on as planned.
The new document will be named "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute”.
Since the text is coming from existing docs authorship will be preserved.
Albert is the appointed editor and will hold the pen.
Because the text has b
Agree, OAM has much bigger scope than traceroute, so naming it with 'traceroute
considerations' makes more sense.
Thanks,
Prakash
-Original Message-
From: lisp On Behalf Of Fabio Maino (fmaino)
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:06 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Ne
I suggest "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute"
that puts a little less emphasis on mobility.
I second Luigi's call to get done with this document and move on.
Thanks,
Fabio
On 3/19/18 4:25 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi All,
during today f2f meeting concern has been exp
Ack.
On 2018-03-21, 8:37 AM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote:
>
> The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the
benefit.
>
This is also consuming my patience.
During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name
and we opene
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:13, Dino Farinacci 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.
>
> The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the
> benefit.
>
This is also consuming my patience.
During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name and
we opened for suggestion from the mailing list.
Let’s not start again in endless discussi
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 g
+1
Dino
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Albert Cabellos
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> 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.
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) wrote:
>
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document
> with these 3 seemi
Hi
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.
I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results
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"
wrot
> 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 l
12 matches
Mail list logo
