Okay, I will do that. I’m working through your other comments today, as well as Colin’s. I’ll send a diff before submitting so we don’t churn too much. Thanks again!
Dino > On Sep 13, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This sounds all fine to me. Please just make sure that the text reflects that > accordingly everywhere where ALT is mentioned at the moment and respectively > make it more generic if needed. I trust you, you will edit this correctly! > >> Am 13.09.2018 um 17:17 schrieb Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:58 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dino, >>> >>>> On 13 Sep 2018, at 00:03, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually I brought this up because there were more cases where I found >>>>> that ALT knowledge is needed. If you don’t want this to be a normative >>>>> reference and remove the sentence above (which I’m not sure is helpful), >>>>> please also double-check all other occurrences of ALT and make sure the >>>>> discussed case is also understandable without ALT knowledge. >>>> >>> >>> I disagree on the approach. IMO it makes more sense to me that this >>> document describes just the Map-Server/Map-Resolver front end. >>> How the front-end works with the actual mapping system is a matter of the >>> specific mapping system. >>> In other words, how Map-Server/Map-Resolver works with LISP-DDT should be >>> in the LISP-DDT document. Ditto for LISP+ALT. >> >> I can go along with this. I have wordsmithed that paragraph to not mention >> LISP-ALT. >> >>> >>>> I think it should left in and we should add LISP-DDT to the paragraph. >>>> Since the two mapping transport systems that have moved forward to RFC are >>>> ALT and DDT. And I believe they should both be Normative References. >>>> >>> >>> This means two downrefs. We will need to move them to PS. >>> I really do not see the need for this but YMMV. >> >> I will keep then as Informative references. And to address Mirja’s comment >> about believing that a reader would need to know more about ALT and DDT, I >> would respond to say, that the documentation is saying that a map-server and >> map-resolver are last-hops/first-hops to ANY mapping database transport >> system. So you can treat it as a black box. The operation of these nodes are >> discussed in the approprorate mapping database transport systems (such as >> LISP-ALT and LISP-DDT). >> >> There are also refernces to LISP-ALT (and LISP-DDT) when we have the option >> for xTRs to be directlry part of the mapping system. This may be a choice >> for LISP deployers when they want a less centralized mapping system. Again, >> there are just references that in this case, the xTRs are >> “first-hop/last-hop” nodes of these mapping database systems. >> >> How does that sound Mirja? >> >> Dino >> >>> >>> Ciao >>> >>> L. >>> >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
