On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 13:57 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Magnus, while it is possible we will still get hold ups on the LISP > documents, I would really prefer to avoid creating a normative > dependency on something that at best is 6 months away. Particularly > since the TSVWG has not cared enough to maintain the document.
I can understand that. So then think you need to figure out what requirements from that document that you thought was relevant to say that they MUST be included in a future specification and include them in the GPE document so that the ecn-encap-guidelines would only be inforamtional reference. Cheers Magnus > > Yours, > Joel > > On 7/9/2020 1:50 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > No, RFC 3819 is not a good replacement for the draft. I would note that only > > a > > minor part of RFC 3819 is updated by draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines. > > > > So I contacted the TSVWG chairs to try to get an update on when the document > > could be ready. The WG has not abandonded it. Actually I found an updated > > version from March that simply failed to make it into the public archive at > > that > > point. > > > > I will also note that the document has gone through one WG last call and > > appear > > to be in descent shape. The only issue is that the main author been busy > > with > > L4S that is a hot topic in TSVWG. > > > > We have requested an estimate for an update from Bob Briscoe so that we can > > get > > this document going forward. > > > > So it might be possible to get this document approved before the end of the > > year. > > > > As an alternativ there might be possible that you can reformulate the > > sentence > > so that the high level requirement that the reader is expected to derive is > > expressed in your document, and then you can get to a state where the > > reference > > would only be informative? > > > > Cheers > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 16:51 +0000, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, thanks for your comments. > > > > > > Wrt I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines it turns out that the draft is > > > expired, so making it normative might not be an option. > > > > > > Since it is meant to replace RFC3819, should we refer to RFC3819 instead? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Fabio > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/20, 5:43 AM, "Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker" <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-17: No Objection > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > > > this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > COMMENT: > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > > > > Section 4.2: > > > > > > To me it looks like this is normative reference: > > > > > > Such new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP- > > > GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from > > > [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. > > > > > > Section 4.3.1: > > > > > > Thanks for writing relevant guidance on how to mitigate the risks > > > with > > > zero > > > checksum. Especially the one on traffic separation from other traffic > > > so > > > that > > > it can be caught on the boundaries of the network to prevent the risk > > > to > > > other > > > networks from corrupted traffic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Networks, Ericsson Research ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
