I recently visited University of Minnesota where I met David (copied on this email). He said, from an RIR perspective, he would help us revise this draft.
Luigi meet David. David meet Luigi. David can comment but he felt we could get a coarse prefix if we just justified how it would be used and would help us write text. Dino On Jan 7, 2013, at 10:03 PM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Workgroup and others, > > Donning the brightly coloured LISP Chair hat. > > The document draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt was handed back to the > Workgroup and the document editors following the IETF last call. The LC > prompted interesting feedback and highlighted some issues. > > The Responsible AD and the LISP chairs have discussed the future of this > document. We believe that the future of this document could be best served > by splitting it in two (one that allocates/justifies the prefix, and one > that describes the LISP specific allocation mechanism) and also altering > text to address the concerns raised during the IETF LC. > > However, before the WG starts to rework the document, I would first like to > canvass the LISP WG as to your opinions. > > 1) Should we, as a WG, continue to work on this item? Is it necessary/useful > for LISP? > > 2) If so, what direction should the WG take this document so that the LISP > experiment is best served? > > I'd also like to call on those folks (as Brian did) who offered review of > this document (CC'd here) during the IETF last call to participate on the > LISP mailing list as to its future. > > Cheers > Terry > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
