On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:02 AM Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 ;-) >
Thanks. -Ekr > Ciao > > L. > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
