> Hi all > > As editor of 6830bis I´d like to confirm or deny the following changes which > I believe have support.
Thanks a lot for doing this Albert. This is very helpful. > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help > sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures the most > relevant ones. > > Also note that I don´t necessarily agree with all the changes listed below, > but that´s an opinion with a different hat. See my brief comments below. > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: I won’t confirm or deny just yet. I want to hear from other WG members. > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and > ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively. These definitions would be confusing. Because there are multiple identifiers on an overlay. And there are multiple overlays as well. And an instance-ID really defines an overlay. Also, putting the term “identifier” with the underlay would confuse many people. It has been decades where people redefine these terms. It just seems endless and doesn’t improve the situation. And note there isn’t one identifier for an underlay either. One could argue that an underlay VPN could be RLOC space that is different than another underlay VPN. But what identifies that VPN is the mechanism used to realize that VPN and not the RLOCs that use it. > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation > concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be > validated by experts): These changes are reasonable. I am fine with adding them. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
