As I understood it, if we say explicitly that allocation and policy will
be dealt with in a separate document, folks thought that would fly. It
might not.
But if it won't, then there is no way we can do this quickly.
Which brings us back to Terry's key question to the WG: Is this
something iportant for us o produce now. If so, why?
Yours,
Joel
On 1/9/2013 6:57 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
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
