As I explained in my reply yesterday if you reference 6830bis this document will be delayed again.
First because we actually need 6830bis in a stable version before moving LISP-SEC forward Second because there will be a missing reference so the RFC editor will keep the document in the queue until 6830bis is an RFC. Not that I am against this choice. Up to the WG to decide. I just want to clarify the way forward. Ciao L. Sent from my iPad > On 24 Oct 2016, at 20:07, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <[email protected]> wrote: > > perfect. > > thanks Dino, > > > Fabio > > > > > Sent with OOR.Mobile (OpenOverlayRouter.org) > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Date: 10/24/16 10:58 AM (GMT-08:00) > To: "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <[email protected]> > Cc: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, "Vina Ermagan > (vermagan)" <[email protected]>, Albert Cabellos <[email protected]>, > Damien Saucez <[email protected]>, [email protected], LISP mailing > list list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP-SEC review (finally) > > > >> Why are you re-defining ECM? > >> You do not specify other packets, e.g., Map-Reply, so why ECM? > >> I would drop it. > > > > It is not defined in the Definitions section of 6830. One would need to go > > through the body of 6830 to find it. > > > > I'll drop it, but we need to make sure that ECM gets into the definition > > section of 6830bis. > > > > Albert: are you looking into that document? Can you take care of this? > > From the Berlin presentation, we had planned to put all control-plane > messages in 6833bis and did plan to include all flags (as well as the S-bit > in the ECM header). So we got this covered. > > In 6833bis we can refer to lisp-sec if we can progress it sooner than > 6833bis. And from a current perspective, it is looking that way. > > Comments? > > Dino > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
