I have a relatively minor teminological problem with this draft. (I have
no opinion as to whether technologically it is a good idea for the LISP
WG to adopt it.)
Relative to the LISP mapping system, the terms pull-based and push-based
long predate this draft. There was an original push-based mapping
system proposed (in which all mappings were pushed to all ITRs). While
we decided not to advance that, the term had an understood meaning.
Also, pull-based and push-based have well-defined meaning in many
contexts. This draft seems to use those terms in a rather idiosyncratic
(not incorrect, but confusing) fashion. I am not sure whether different
terms or additional qualifiers are the better solution.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 9:40 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
The LISP WG has placed draft-farinacci-lisp-decent in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Luigi Iannone)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-decent/
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
