Hi Joel, I've got your point.
Your suggestion is to take out the DDT section and put it in the DDT document (right?). For the first part (take it out from this doc) I have no problems. For the second part (put it in the DDT doc) is up to the DDT authors, according with their plans for the document. (simplest solution is to cut & paste as it is ;-) ) ciao Luigi On 13 Dec. 2012, at 17:39 , Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
