That sounds reasonable Joel. We will work on an extended description and get back to the list.
Thanks, Alberto On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joel Halpern Direct < [email protected]> wrote: > Comparing what we have in 6833bis and NAT Traversal for the xTR-ID in the > map register, and the proposed text plus the text in the pubsub draft for > this usage of xTR-ID, it looks to me like we would benefit from a better > description of this value is to be generated and used. Particularly if we > want to put it in the base spec. > > That said, with a reasonable explanation, it seems reasonable to do that, > just as we did on the register side. > > Yours, > joel > > On 9/20/17 12:05 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: > >> Sure Joel. >> >> The xTR-ID in the Map-Request was originally defined for the PubSub draft >> [1]. In that document, it is used as a way to unequivocally identify >> subscribers to a mapping. >> >> However, we believe that it may have value besides that specific use-case >> and that RFC6833bis would be a better place to define it. >> >> Thanks, >> Alberto >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-00 >> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I can well believe that is useful. >> It would help you you provided use case? >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> >> On 9/19/17 10:34 PM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We would like to suggest updating rfc6833bis [1] to include the >> xTR-ID in the Map-Request, in the same way that is already >> defined for the Map-Register. >> >> In particular, we propose to update the Map-Request message >> format in page 10 to include an I-bit right next to the m-bit >> (i.e. the I-bit would be in position 11). We suggest the >> following text to be included in page 11, after the explanation >> of the m-bit: >> >> “I: This is the xTR-ID bit. When this bit is set, a 128-bit >> xTR-ID field followed by a 64-bit Site-ID field are appended to >> the end of the Map-Request, immediately following the last >> EID-Record (or the Map-Reply Record, if present).” >> >> Let us know what you think. >> >> Thanks, >> Alberto >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
