On 9 Jan. 2013, at 01:22 , Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> Commenting just on this one piece, the reason for suggesting separating the > two pieces has two components, as I understand the situation. > 1) There is a belief that it would be helpful to get the prefix soon. > 2) working out, ad then clearly documen, the plan for LISP EID assignment / > delegation still needs significant work, and is not likely to complete > quickly. Hi Joel, don't we risk to have the first document blocked until the second is finished? Most concerns during LC were about "why to allocate a prefix if we do not know how to use it?". >From my understanding even having the prefix today it will not be possible to >use it until document 2 is out as well. What am I missing? Luigi > > If these two observations are both accurate, then separating the problems > seems the only path that meets the goals. If we do not need to get the > prefix allocated quickly, then I would tend to strongly favor working out the > rest of the system, delegation, allocation, and usage so that we know how all > the parts work. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 1/8/2013 5:22 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>> 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. >> May I dare to ask why? _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
