Agreed, your action would be to remove the DDT material from this document.
The question of how the DDT spec handles having sufficient security
discussion is a separate matter.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/14/2012 6:01 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
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
