Hi I'll post a new version without such sections shortly.
I volunteer to help writing the OAM document. Albert On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> This document should address all the comments except this one: > >>> > >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement > Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document > >>> > >>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this > text will go. > >> > >> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text. > > > > Nobody wants to lose valuable text. > > Glad you feel that way. > > > > >> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to > lose it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it. > > > > That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM > document, without any change in the text. > > Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense. > > This is an half an hour task. > > But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the > co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833. > > So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus. > > > > >> > >> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t > make any change. > > > > Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document. > > If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task. > Authorship will be anyway preserved. > > > Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of > how EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are > already documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t > go in an OAM document. > > Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the > network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the > Deployment RFC. > > Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an > OAM document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are > other OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM > document. > > This will not take 1/2 hour. > > And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We > have already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane > text. We achieved that goal from the charter. > > Dino > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
