June 24 for both LCAF related and mobility sets? Fine with me.
Dino
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 4:46 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dino
>
> The groupings look good!
>
> Some dates look too aggressive Nov 2023: draft-ietf-lisp-geo,
> draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (S
Hi Dino
The groupings look good!
Some dates look too aggressive Nov 2023: draft-ietf-lisp-geo,
draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (Standards Track). We are
already there ...
As the dates proposed are target dates, i suggest we keep the date of June
2024 but if we can go faster it i
> What do you think of putting some major milestones for mobility and security
> sections rather than per document?
I think security is further out compared to mobility. Just because other groups
will have to peer-review the security documents. But good suggestion and will
incldue below the set
Hi Dino
Thank you for the comments.
What do you think of putting some major milestones for mobility and
security sections rather than per document?
Padma
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:31 PM Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Looking at what you put earlier versus later is not based on the reality
> of th
> HTTP! And to make things more confusing, it was up to a router to pull from
> specific sources, like RIRs.
Right, so it was a "pull-all-state" protocol. Not a push, like BGP would do it.
Dino
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
Internet-Draft draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-13.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) WG of the IETF.
Title: A Decent LISP Mapping System (LISP-Decent)
Authors: Dino Farinacci
Colin Cantrell
Name:draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-13
On 16.10.2023 21:36, Dino Farinacci wrote:
NERD, used management protocols and not a control plane if I recall.
HTTP! And to make things more confusing, it was up to a router to pull
from specific sources, like RIRs.
Eliot
___
lisp mailing list
Thank you. That fully resolves my concern.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 4:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Yes, that would do it.
Please ack if these diffs satisfy your comments.
Thanks,
Dino
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/
> Yes, that would do it.
Please ack if these diffs satisfy your comments.
Thanks,
Dino
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-12.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
Yes, that would do it.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 3:41 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I can change the spec to be more specific as you suggest. Would that work for
you?
Dino
On Oct 16, 2023, at 12:38 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
To point to one example of the problem, this draft defines "push based
I can change the spec to be more specific as you suggest. Would that work for
you?
Dino
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 12:38 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
>
> To point to one example of the problem, this draft defines "push based" as
> using multicast. Decent uses multicast. But not all push based systems
To point to one example of the problem, this draft defines "push based"
as using multicast. Decent uses multicast. But not all push based
systems use multicast. The definitions of push-based and pull-based
should be general. Decent-pulll and decent-push (or some other terms)
can be defined
> Relative to the LISP mapping system, the terms pull-based and push-based long
> predate this draft. There was an original push-based mapping system proposed
> (in which all mappings were pushed to all ITRs). While we decided not to
> advance that,
Right, the LISP-Decent pushed-based uses mu
Looking at what you put earlier versus later is not based on the reality of the
readiness of the documents. Here are some comments:
(1) Nov 2023 should be Submit Name-Encoding to IESG.
(2) Geo-Coordinates has been stable for a long time where NAT-traversal is so
far from ready. The June date for
I have a relatively minor teminological problem with this draft. (I have
no opinion as to whether technologically it is a good idea for the LISP
WG to adopt it.)
Relative to the LISP mapping system, the terms pull-based and push-based
long predate this draft. There was an original push-based
Good points Padma,
What about the following ordering?
1. November 2023: Submit a LISP Yang model document to the IESG for
consideration
2. March 2024: Submit LISP Traffic Engineering document to the IESG for
consideration
3. March 2024: Submit LISP Reliable Transport document to the IESG for
The LISP WG has placed draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Luigi Iannone)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity/
___
lisp ma
The LISP WG has placed draft-farinacci-lisp-decent in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Luigi Iannone)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-decent/
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https
Hi Padma,
> On Oct 13, 2023, at 19:21, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>
>>
>> Main work items are identified as follows:
>>
>> Standard Track Documents: The core specifications of LISP have been
>> published as “Standard Track” ([RFC9300], [RFC9301]). The WG will continue
>> the work of moving
19 matches
Mail list logo
