Brief reply. >>>> >>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, >>>> VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP >>>> control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in their data-planes. >>>> Hence, why this information is there. >>> >>> Doesn’t make sense to me. That is not a reason. >> >> It is a reason, maybe one you don’t like, but it is a reason. >> > > The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that > does not belong to the data-plane.
The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage the elements in the map-cache. It’s the only place it should go. > > >>> That information can be available in another document and still be used by >>> LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane. >> >> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a >> control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830. >> > > We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and > easier to read. > > > [snip] >> >>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point describing >>>>> what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear. >>>> >>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell me why >>>> you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say >>>> what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then we move to >>>> RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward. >>>> >>> >>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else. >>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details. >> >> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I’m not going to change >> it. >> > > Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert. Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text. >> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent >> effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don’t want to repeat text as >> you suggested above. >> > > The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the text > again to make sure nothing has been lost. Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text. > As I suggested in first mail: > > We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce, > > We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing Sorry, I can’t follow these references. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
