Hi Alvaro, On 2/16/16 6:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > Luigi: > > Hi! > > ... >> >>> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful >>> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a >>> permanent >>> assignment (Section 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined. How >>> should >>> this decision be made? How will the IETF know the experiment is >>> successful? >>> >> >> This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a >> permanent allocation is needed. > > I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from there. > > I still think there should be some indication of what is success. Is it > related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the > advertisement of those allocations? The use of those allocation in > production? All/none of the above? > > IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue or > not, there should be some criteria to consider.
The original request was for a permanent allocation from IANA. During the first IETF Last Call, there was significant push back on that. The result was to request a temporary allocation that expires in a set time period. After that, it would be up to the IESG to determine if the allocation should be made permanent or retired. I viewed that compromise as saying that the IESG in 2018 would determine the criteria for making the allocation permanent or not. This may be worth discussing in detail on Thursday. Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
