Yes, a new version can be posted. Brian
On 2/13/15 12:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Given that Brian has signed off on the current version, and that this is > explicitly on the IESG agenda, I would like Brian's confirmation that > posting a new version is acceptable (it seems like a good idea to me.) > > Yours, > Joel > > On 2/13/15 8:51 AM, Black, David wrote: >> Yes. I think we've discussed and reached conclusions on everything >> except whether >> to add text on the IPv6 UDP zero checksum topic. Could I suggest >> submission of >> a -12 version of the draft that captures everything that's been >> discussed/resolved? >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:38 AM >>> To: Black, David >>> Cc: Dino Farinacci; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert Cabellos; >>> Damien >>> Saucez; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 >>> [B] >>> >>> >>>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same >>>> output as >>> its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved). >>>> The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" >>>> and that >>> needs to be corrected. >>>> >>> >>> Excellent progress thanks. >>> >>> So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer >>> multicast >>> groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the >>> underlay >>> provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay. >>> >>> Did I get it right? >>> >>> L. >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> --David >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM >>>>> To: Black, David >>>>> Cc: Luigi Iannone; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert >>>>> Cabellos; Damien >>>>> Saucez; [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of >>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B] >>>>> >>>>> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control >>>>> overlay's >>> group >>>>> address allocation. >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely >>>>>> clear >>> that >>>>>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that >>>>>> mapping >>>>>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> --David >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM >>>>>>> To: Luigi Iannone >>>>>>> Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert Cabellos; >>> Damien >>>>>>> Saucez; [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of >>>>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> G-EID => the EID multicast group G >>>>>>>> G-RLOC => the RLOC multicast group G >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP >>> multicast >>>>>>> documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dino >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
