I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
Regards, Reshad. On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations”. > > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection or you have a better name to suggest. I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting today. He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”. Wonder how people would feel about that? Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
