Re: [lisp] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I fixed all the comments you had in the COMMENT section. Dino > On Sep 27, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to a

[lisp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21.txt

Reflects editorial comments from today’s Telechat.Dino<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff-6830bis.html": Unrecognized >>> Begin forwarded message:From: internet-dra...@ietf.orgSubject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21.txtDate: September 27, 2018 at 2:17:47 PM PDTTo:

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Authors : Dino Farinacci V

Re: [lisp] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Doing the same as I did with Ben’s email. Fixing the simple stuff first. The simple changes (editorial) will be submitted in -21. > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > S 5.3

Re: [lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Fixing the simple issues first. Clipping out the rest of the text. > Is there anything different between an "EID-to-RLOC Map-Request" and just a > "Map-Request"? (Same question for "Map-Reply", too.) No. But Map-Requests are used for lookups in the mapping system as well as for probing RLOCs fo

Re: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS)

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> This should be an easy fix but I would like to see it fixed before >> publication. >> When talking about IPv6 packets being larger than L, the correct behavior >> should be to send an ICMPv6 message with Type 2 (Packet Too Big) instead

Re: [lisp] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with COMMENT)

> Ok, maybe this is just me, but you don't actually define how to hash these > things, you are only talking about what needs to be covered by the hash. I > appreciate that picking a specific hashing algorithm is probably not relevant > for interoperability, but I feel adding a specific algorithm (a

Re: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS)

> This should be an easy fix but I would like to see it fixed before > publication. > When talking about IPv6 packets being larger than L, the correct behavior > should be to send an ICMPv6 message with Type 2 (Packet Too Big) instead of > the > Destination Unreachable (Type 1) message as specifi

Re: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

The working group decided to not document that bit since LISP-GPE was further behind in the standards process. That could be different now but others can comment. Dino > On Sep 27, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > > Hi Dino, > >> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:

Re: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Dino, > On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> COMMENT: >> -- >> >> This draft needs to update RFC6830 since it takes the last reserved bit away >> from there. As a side question, since 6830 is being bised

Re: [lisp] Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS)

"-- > DISCUSS: > -- > > IANA has requested a Temporary Discuss related to issue with port assignments. I don’t know what this could be about. I had gone back and

Re: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

> COMMENT: > -- > > This draft needs to update RFC6830 since it takes the last reserved bit away > from there. As a side question, since 6830 is being bised right now should > this > flag be acknowledged in the bis draft? The wo

Re: [lisp] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with COMMENT)

> I'm curious why there are several authors listed with an affiliation (Cisco) > who no longer have that affiliation AFAIK. The authors decided to do this since much of the foundational work was done while the authors were at cisco. We thought the right thing to do was to give cisco credit. Din

[lisp] Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS)

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: Discuss 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 ht

[lisp] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: 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

[lisp] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: 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

Re: [lisp] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Stewart, thanks for your review. I have entered a DISCUSS ballot on this point. Alissa > On Aug 27, 2018, at 2:55 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > Clearly I think it makes better sense to sequence the drafts in dependency > order so that everything lines up. > > However, ultimately that is a dec

[lisp] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: Discuss 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.

[lisp] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: Discuss 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 htt

Re: [lisp] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15

Pete, thanks for your reviews. Dino, thanks for your responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:16 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > Thanks again Pete for all your effort. > > Dino > >> On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Pete

[lisp] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: 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

[lisp] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: 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

[lisp] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: 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 t

[lisp] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: Discuss 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

[lisp] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: Discuss 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

[lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: Discuss 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

[lisp] WGLC fo draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00.txt

Well, Authors were pretty quick … This email open the one week WG Last Call for the document draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00.txt Please review this WG document and let the WG know if you agree that it is ready for handing to the AD. If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and expl

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : LISP Control-Plane ECDSA Authentication and Authorization Authors : Dino Farinacci

[lisp] The LISP WG has placed draft-boucadair-lisp-rfc8113bis in state "Adopted by a WG"

The LISP WG has placed draft-boucadair-lisp-rfc8113bis in state Adopted by a WG (entered by Luigi Iannone) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-lisp-rfc8113bis/ ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.i

Re: [lisp] Call fo adoption of draft-boucadair-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.txt

All, one week is over and we received several email in support adoption of this document. Because of such consensus the authors are invited to submit a document named draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00.txt. As soon as the new document is available we will start the WG Last Call, as already said in