Thank you for responding to my comments.
With regard to the discussion of MS, ALT, and DDT, it seems to me that
there are a couple of reasons for splitting DDT out:
1) MS and ALT are already documented, and need better security
description. This seems the sensible place to fill that. IN contrast,
the security information for DDT can be included in that document.
2) In theory there can be yet other mapping systems. This document can
not deal with all future cases.
I would like t be able to complete this short term deliverable without
making it dependent upon a long term deliverable.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/13/2012 3:27 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
I am wondering about the tradeoff of including DDT in this
document. On the one hand, DDT is where we likely are going. On
the other hand, including that material will mean that this
document gets an RFC Editor hold until LISP DDT is published.
Would it make more sense to defer the DDT specific section to the
DDT document?
Another good point but actually goes beyond DDT IMO. If we put ALT
and MS make sense to me to put DDT as well.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
