Hi all I just posted -12 with the changes suggested by Luigi
Albert On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > Hi Albert, > > thanks for submitting the updated document. > > I have have a few residual nits listed below. Fixed those we can move to > LC IMO. > > Ciao > > L. > > > > LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is > randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce > generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are > required to generate different nonces when sending to different > destinations. > > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, for > clarity. > > > The Clock Sweep mechanism is just about management should go in AOM. > > > The following document are not Normative: > > [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, > "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp106>, RFC 4086 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4086>, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. > > > [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility > Support in IPv6", RFC 6275 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6275>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July > 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. > > > > > > > On 5 Mar 2018, at 22:33, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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
