Folks,
In keeping with the WG Charter, draft-ietf-lisp-deployment should be labeled
EXPERIMENTAL, not INFORMATIONAL. For supporting information, please see the
following milestone in the LISP Charter:
- Sep 2012 Submit a deployment model document to the IESG for publication
as an Experimental RFC
Also in keeping with the LISP charter, draft-ietf-lisp-deployment should
include the following disclaimer, which is taken from RFC 6830:
- This experimental specification has areas that require additional experience
and measurement. It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment beyond experimental
situations. Results of experimentation may lead to modifications and
enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in this document. See Section 15
[of RFC 6830] for specific, known issues that are in need of further work
during development, implementation, and experimentation.
I say this because of the following text, taken from the LISP WG Charter:
- The specifications developed by the WG are Experimental and labeled with
accurate disclaimers about their limitations and not fully understood
implications for Internet traffic. In addition, as these issues are understood,
the working group will analyze and document the implications of LISP on
Internet traffic, applications, routers, and security.
Ron
> From: The IESG <[email protected]>
> To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]>
> Reply-to: [email protected]
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-08.txt> (LISP Network Element
> Deployment Considerations) to Informational RFC
> X-C5I-RSN: 1/0/934/11346/12106
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
> WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
> - 'LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations'
> <draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-08.txt> as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email protected] mailing lists by 2013-07-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
