Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Luigi Iannone]

HI all,

We  think that we can move on as planned.

The new document will be named "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and 
Traceroute”.

Since the text is coming from existing docs authorship will be preserved.

Albert is the appointed editor and will hold the pen.

Because the text has been already thoroughly reviewed in the past we expect to 
make rapid progress with this document.

Ciao

Joel & Luigi


> On 19 Mar 2018, at 16:25, Luigi Iannone  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for 
> the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane.
> 
> The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all 
> of what is normally in a OAM document.
> 
> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
> considerations”.
> 
> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection 
> or you have a better name to suggest.
> 
> Please send an email by the end of the week.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jole and Luigi

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Prakash Jain (prakjain)]

Agree, OAM has much bigger scope than traceroute, so naming it with 'traceroute 
considerations' makes more sense.
Thanks,
Prakash

-Original Message-
From: lisp <lisp-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Fabio Maino (fmaino)
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:06 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

I suggest "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute" 
that puts a little less emphasis on mobility.

I second Luigi's call to get done with this document and move on.


Thanks,
Fabio

On 3/19/18 4:25 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for 
> the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane.
>
> The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all 
> of what is normally in a OAM document.
>
> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
> considerations”.
>
> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection 
> or you have a better name to suggest.
>
> Please send an email by the end of the week.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jole and Luigi
> ___
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Fabio Maino]

I suggest "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute" 
that puts a little less emphasis on mobility.


I second Luigi's call to get done with this document and move on.


Thanks,
Fabio

On 3/19/18 4:25 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:

Hi All,

during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for 
the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane.

The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all of 
what is normally in a OAM document.

The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations”.

The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection 
or you have a better name to suggest.

Please send an email by the end of the week.

Thanks

Jole and Luigi
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp



___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

Ack.


On 2018-03-21, 8:37 AM, "Luigi Iannone"  wrote:

> 
> The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the 
benefit.
> 

This is also consuming my patience.

During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name 
and we opened for suggestion from the mailing list.

Let’s not start again  in endless discussion. 

By Friday we settle for a name and we move on AS DECIDED. 
Not opening again for any change that will trigger discussion.

We are close to finish this part of the work, so let’s do it.

L.




___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Luigi Iannone]

> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:13, Dino Farinacci  wrote:
> 
> I think the problem is that RFC6830bis has too narrow a definition of 
> “data-plane”. I believe you think it as the sole purpose of forwarding data 
> packets. I view it as the “nodes that make up the data-plane” should be part 
> of that.
> 
> Having said that, the Deployment section is saying where xTRs go and why. The 
> Mobility section is saying where EIDs and RLOCs are and off often the can 
> change. Both of these sections has nothing to do with control-plane and hence 
> they shouldn’t go in RFC6833bis but should not go into a OAM document either.
> 
> The Traceroute section is probably the only section that should go in a 
> document titled “OAM”. But what is the cost of putting just this section in a 
> document?
> 

p.s. I will not answer this part of the email because we are far over the 
discussion and I don’t want to open it again.
Let move on as planned.

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Luigi Iannone]

> 
> The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the 
> benefit.
> 

This is also consuming my patience.

During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name and 
we opened for suggestion from the mailing list.

Let’s not start again  in endless discussion. 

By Friday we settle for a name and we move on AS DECIDED. 
Not opening again for any change that will trigger discussion.

We are close to finish this part of the work, so let’s do it.

L.


___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Dino Farinacci]

I think the problem is that RFC6830bis has too narrow a definition of 
“data-plane”. I believe you think it as the sole purpose of forwarding data 
packets. I view it as the “nodes that make up the data-plane” should be part of 
that.

Having said that, the Deployment section is saying where xTRs go and why. The 
Mobility section is saying where EIDs and RLOCs are and off often the can 
change. Both of these sections has nothing to do with control-plane and hence 
they shouldn’t go in RFC6833bis but should not go into a OAM document either.

The Traceroute section is probably the only section that should go in a 
document titled “OAM”. But what is the cost of putting just this section in a 
document?

The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the benefit.

Dino

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:
> 
> If the items are unrelated why should they go to 2 different document, 
> knowing that are not related to the data-plane neither ?
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:58, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a 
>> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the 
>> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Reshad.
>> 
>> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
>>> considerations”.
>>> 
>>> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
>>> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
>> 
>>   I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
>> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
>> today. 
>> 
>>   He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
>> put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
>> called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
>> 
>>   Wonder how people would feel about that?
>> 
>>   Dino
>> 
>>   ___
>>   lisp mailing list
>>   lisp@ietf.org
>>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>> 
>> 
> 

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Dino Farinacci]

+1

Dino

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Albert Cabellos  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> 
> I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results 
> in a document without clear focus. 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Albert
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  
> wrote:
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
> considerations”.
> >
> > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
> 
> I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
> today.
> 
> He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis 
> and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can 
> be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
> 
> Wonder how people would feel about that?
> 
> Dino
> 
> ___
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> 
> ___
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Luigi Iannone]

If the items are unrelated why should they go to 2 different document, knowing 
that are not related to the data-plane neither ?

L.


> On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:58, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  wrote:
> 
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>  wrote:
> 
>> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
>> considerations”.
>> 
>> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
>> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
> 
>I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
> today. 
> 
>He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
> put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
> called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
> 
>Wonder how people would feel about that?
> 
>Dino
> 
>___
>lisp mailing list
>lisp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> 

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Albert Cabellos]

Hi

I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a
> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the
> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.



I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results
in a document without clear focus.

Kind regards

Albert

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
wrote:

> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a
> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the
> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" <
> lisp-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of farina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute
> considerations”.
> >
> > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any
> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
>
> I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one
> document) but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after
> the meeting today.
>
> He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis
> and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can
> be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
>
> Wonder how people would feel about that?
>
> Dino
>
> ___
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>
>
> ___
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one out). 
So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
 wrote:

> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
considerations”.
> 
> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
objection or you have a better name to suggest.

I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
today. 

He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.

Wonder how people would feel about that?

Dino

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Dino Farinacci]

> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
> considerations”.
> 
> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection 
> or you have a better name to suggest.

I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) but I 
would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting today. 

He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and put 
Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be called 
“draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.

Wonder how people would feel about that?

Dino

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp