Hi Eric, just a quick comment on one point.
> On 7 Feb 2019, at 14:40, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now with LISP on the To: line > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:37 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I apologize for the length of this e-mail, but there's a lot to > go over. > > I have gone over the responses to my DISCUSS on the LISP > documents as well as taken another look at LISP-SEC. I agree that a number of > the > issues I raised are resolved, and I note those below. However, > I believe that a number of issues remain. > > First, as a procedural I do not think it's appropriate to approve two > documents (6830bis and 6833bis) which have critical security > dependencies on documents (LISP-SEC, Map-Version) which are not yet > before the IESG and therefore have contents which might change during > IETF-LC. We felt that would be better to hold those two documents back. On the one hand, to double check that they are coherent to any change introduced in the main specs (6830bis and 6833bis), before sending them further. On the other hand, we wanted (may be wrongly) avoid to swamp the IESG with LISP documents all at once. Even looking at the decision now, I thing it was reasonable. But let’s move forward… LISP-SEC is under WG LC. Map-Versioning is on my to do lisp for a final check. I asked the shepherd (Padma) to hold on few more days before submitting the writeup and ask formally for publication. All of this to say that soon you will have more reading ;-) Ciao L.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
