Re: [lisp] Moving draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding to standard track?

I support moving this document to standard track Fabio From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:53 AM To: LISP mailing list list Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] Moving draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding to standard track? Hi All, Happy new year! As

Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently in the charter but not finished

Dino, Back then Albert Lopez, Vina and others invested quite some time addressing in draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal a lot of corner cases that were coming from mobiity. Before we move forward with a NAT document we should make sure we either explicitly leave out those use cases, or address

[lisp] Supporting lisp-geo [Was: Re: lisp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 115]

Chairs, I would like to support Dino's request for WG adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-geo/. It's a well written document that defines the Geo-coordinate LCAF type. The draft brings up a couple of good use cases that illustrates how the LCAF type would be

Re: [lisp] LISP Specifications Published!! :-)

Now it’s time to pull the Prosecco! Thanks and congratulations to all those that have made this possible… Fabio From: lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci Date: Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 2:43 PM To: Alvaro Retana Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Specifications Published!!

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00.txt

I support handing this document over to the AD. Encoding Distinguished Names in LISP is a simple but important feature, and the document does a very good job of articulating how it should be done providing a few good examples of why is relevant. Fabio From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone

Re: [lisp] New lisp WG Co-Chair

Joel, thanks for the steady guidance and strong support you have provided to the WG over the years. I can think of so many reasons why we really wouldn't be where we are without your help. Good luck with whatever is your next challenge at the IETF. Padma, congratulations and welcome in your

Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25

Thanks Alvaro, I believe Damien and Luigi are already taking a first pass. After a quick review between the authors, we should be able to return it back to you. Fabio On 4/28/22, 9:17 AM, "Alvaro Retana" wrote: Hi! I'm just moving this message up in people's mailer to make sure

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon

As an author, I support the document. I think it’s a very interesting use case, that shows how LISP can support a global geo-localization index infrastructure. A good example of how a fast, scalable lookup infrastructure can support, up to a certain extent, use cases that are typically

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub

As a contributor I support handing this draft to the AD. Pubsub operations are an important extension for the LISP architecture. There are a number of use cases where ITRs need to be notified of rapidly changing mappings. This draft leverages the Map-Request/Mao-Notify messages to handle

Re: [lisp] Moving forward with lisp-nexagon

It’s indeed a very interesting use case and application for the LISP protocol. As an author, I would like to see the WG involved with this topic. Thanks, Fabio From: lisp on behalf of Sharon Barkai Date: Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:45 AM To: "lisp@ietf.org list" Subject: [lisp] Moving

Re: [lisp] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-17: (with COMMENT)

reference but at least it is not directly part of an RFC 2119 language sentence. Cheers Magnus On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 19:04 +0000, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > Magnus, > here is how we modified the latest version of the draft trying to reflect your > concerns, and to d

Re: [lisp] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Rob, Thanks for your review. Please see below. On 7/7/20, 3:41 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for your comments, Martin. Please see below. On 7/6/20, 9:18 PM, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" wrote: Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

Re: [lisp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for your review Eric. Please see below our replies. On 7/7/20, 1:02 AM, "lisp on behalf of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line

Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks anyway Mirja, your help along all of this was much appreciated! Fabio On 6/8/20, 12:42 PM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" wrote: Thanks a lot! I believe all my comments are addressed but I’m also not an AD anymore… > On 1. Jun 2020, at 07:55, Fabio Maino (fm

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt

Done! Fabio From: Fabio Maino Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 9:43 AM To: Luigi Iannone Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt Sounds good Luigi. I’ll publish an updated version that reflects yo

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt

Sounds good Luigi. I’ll publish an updated version that reflects your suggestions later today. Fabio From: Luigi Iannone Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 10:45 PM To: Fabio Maino Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-

[lisp] support for INT in LISP-GPE

In-Band Network Telemetry (INT) is specified in https://p4.org/assets/INT-current-spec.pdf. We’ve been asked by implementors to include a codepoint in lisp-gpe to support that header. I understand that the normal procedure to follow would be to write a INT draft that would request IANA to

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt

Ciso Luigi, please see below... On 6/2/20, 12:11 AM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote: > On 1 Jun 2020, at 07:53, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > > Ciao Luigi, > The reason is to allow to experiment with shim headers and non-shim headers at the same time. As

Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> -Original Message- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 5:22 AM > To: Fabio Maino (fmaino) ; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A > Cc: The IESG ; lisp-cha...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com; draft-ietf-lisp-...@ietf.or

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt

n-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. > >Title : LISP Generic Protocol Extension > Authors : Fabio Maino > Jennifer Lemon >

Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

gt; On 8. Jan 2020, at 00:02, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > It took quite some time, but I think we are finally making progress with the review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe and the related LISP RFCbis drafts (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc

Re: [lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, Thanks for your comments, and happy new year! Please see below. On 12/30/19, 11:49 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" wrote: Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the

Re: [lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's Abstain on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, this is to pop up the lisp-gpe review as per conversation in Singapore. Thanks, Fabio On 11/19/19, 12:00 AM, "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" wrote: Hi Benjamin, We have published rev -12 of LISP-GPE that shoukd address the down ref to RFC8060 that you brought up, and so

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12.txt

t; >>>>The discovery of xTR capabilities to support LISP-GPE and related features >>>>is out of the scope of this document. >>>>Given that the applicability domain of LISP-GPE is a traffic

Re: [lisp] Support draft-nexagon wg adoption

Hi Luigi, as a co-author I support adoption of this document. It’s a very interesting use case that leverages LISP aspects such as signal free multicast and pub-sub that are some of the most interesting features of the LISP protocol stack. It’s also a very interesting example of how LISP can

Re: [lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks Benjamin, Moving 8060 to normative was my unintentional mistake, sorry. We had actually reduced the dependency from 8060 in rev -08. I've just published -09 that brings 8060 back to informative (and also addresses the 'partial mitigation' comment). Thanks, Fabio On 10/24/19, 5:45

Re: [lisp] [Call for Agenda Items] IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda

Luigi, Sorry this is coming very late, but can I have 10 min for an update on LISP-SEC? Thanks, Fabio From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:04 AM To: "lisp@ietf.org list" Subject: [lisp] [Call for Agenda Items] IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda All, The

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for LISP-SEC (draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17.txt)

Hi Mohamed, Thanks again for your comments. They should be addressed by rev -18. See my previous message to the list for the details. Thanks, Fabio From: lisp on behalf of "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:50 PM To: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" Cc:

Re: [lisp] Deriving Map-Register/Notify authentication key from PSK [Was: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)]

On 3/20/19 8:05 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 03:01:07PM -0700, Fabio Maino wrote: Hi Ben, I'm starting this separated thread to discuss this point. Thanks for splitting it off. On 2/7/19 5:50 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: This document includes a mechansism to use HMAC

[lisp] Deriving Map-Register/Notify authentication key from PSK [Was: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)]

Hi Ben, I'm starting this separated thread to discuss this point. On 2/7/19 5:50 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: This document includes a mechansism to use HMAC keyed by a pre-shared key to authenticate messages (Map-Register and Map-Notify*); it is directly using the long-term PSK as the HMAC key.

Re: [lisp] incremental transition to LISP-SEC (was Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

cified in Section 5.8. Thanks, Fabio On 2/28/19 3:46 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: Hi Benjamin, thanks for bringing this up. I think it makes  sense to have a mechanism for secure downgrade, and it should indeed simplify adoption and transition to LISP-SEC. I discussed what you propose

Re: [lisp] incremental transition to LISP-SEC (was Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Hi Benjamin, thanks for bringing this up. I think it makes  sense to have a mechanism for secure downgrade, and it should indeed simplify adoption and transition to LISP-SEC. I discussed what you proposed here with the LISP-SEC authors and with Dino and Alberto. We agree to the principles of

Re: [lisp] comments on draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17

Thanks Ben, we will indeed be looking at these comments with the perspective of the RFCbis in mind. Fabio On 2/19/19 8:07 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Hi folks, Since this document is still sort-of in WGLC, I'm sending my notes on it. They were originally written as notes to myself during my

Re: [lisp] Fwd: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 9/28/18 3:38 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: As co-chair, I would like to hear from the working group as to whether making LISP-SEC mandatory to Implement (not Mandatory to Use) for LISP6830bis and 6833bis implementations is a) desirable I have always seen LISP-SEC as part of the LISP "core"

Re: [lisp] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 9/28/18 3:41 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Thank you Benjamin.  This response helps me understand the situation. I have sent a note to the WG about making LISP-SEC MTI.  That kind of change needs WG support. I second that. The email was indeed very helpful, and I think we can use it

Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for  your comments Alvaro. Please see below. On 9/25/18 11:14 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote: Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the

Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

ctions not supported in the LISP header. Ciao Thanks for catching this Luigi. It will be addressed in -07. Fabio L. On 21 Sep 2018, at 07:12, Fabio Maino <mailto:fma...@cisco.com>> wrote: I have incorporated the changes as discussed, so hopefully rev 6. can be used by reviewer

Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

text is excellent. Some comments inline for needed clarifications and additions. On 9/18/2018 9:52 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: Hi Magnus, thanks for your comments. I think I see the points you are making. I'll add the section 3.1 below to specify the general transport requirements

Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Hi Magnus, thanks for your comments. I think I see the points you are making. I'll add the section 3.1 below to specify the general transport requirements for the registration of new LISP-GPE payloads, and I will introduce two subsections to instantiate those requirements for Ethernet and

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth-03.txt

support. Fabio On 9/5/18 12:46 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Folks, As you can see from Dino’s email (below) the authors are requesting that the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth/ be adopted as WG item. This email starts the usual 14 days call for

Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14

Looks good Dino. Noted one nit in section 18, not worth spinning a new version IMO: "The is 1 remaining bit" -> "The 1 remaining bit" Fabio On 8/20/18 11:42 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: WG, here is a diff with changes to reflect Scott’s comment. I wanted the list of implementator to-be-aware

Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04

, That additional text is helpful, thanks. Adrian -Original Message- From: Fabio Maino [mailto:fma...@cisco.com] Sent: 15 August 2018 19:15 To: Adrian Farrel; rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: lisp@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf

I support handing this document to the AD. It's pretty straightforward, and I'm aware of implementations that plan to take advantage of this feature. Fabio On 7/6/18 6:06 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Folks, As Alberto mentioned in a previous mail, in London there was consensus to move forward

Re: [lisp] The LISP WG has placed draft-iannone-6834bis in state "In WG Last Call"

Support. Fabio On May 21, 2018 8:43 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote: The LISP WG has placed draft-iannone-6834bis in state In WG Last Call (entered by Joel Halpern) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-6834bis/ Comment: A

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12

I support handing the LISP dataplane document  to the AD. I recommend that, as was agreed at the last IETF, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe quickly follows  so we can have multiprotocol support standardized as well. Thanks, Fabio On 4/5/18 7:17 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During our last meeting

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10

I have read the document and I think it's ready to be handed to the AD. I feel the document does a very good job of describing the LISP CP, and addresses the issues that were raised by the WG. Thanks, Fabio On 4/5/18 7:35 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During our last meeting it was

Re: [lisp] MS-SMR draft

I agree with Dino. Fabio On 4/6/18 8:07 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Well it wasn’t a previous WG solution. It was an individual submission that one vendor implemented. Since the WG supports pubsub going forward, I think a forward pointer from the individual submission to the WG document is

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03

As an author, I support handing over this document to the AD. Fabio On 4/5/18 7:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During our last meeting, the authors of the LISP GPE document  [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03] asked for Last Call. The room showed consensus and no

Re: [lisp] LISP-GPE Review

I have published rev -03 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/) that fixes a couple of nits identified by Joel. Changes are highlighted in the attached file. Thanks, Fabio On 3/30/18 3:53 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: I have updated the lisp-gpe draft (https

Re: [lisp] The LISP WG has placed draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

As an author, I support adoption of this document. This is an important and much needed extension of the LISP protocol that enable publish subscribe functionalities. Fabio On 4/3/18 6:14 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: The LISP WG has placed draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub in state Call For

Re: [lisp] LISP-GPE Review

Email: john.le...@broadcom.com Puneet Agarwal Innovium USA Email: pun...@acm.org Larry Kreeger USA Email: lkree...@gmail.com Paul Quinn Cisco Systems Email: pa...@cisco.com Michael Smith Cisco Systems Email: michs...@cisco.com Le

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

Re: [lisp] Adoption call: draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt

rwal   Larry Kreeger   Paul Quinn   Michael Smith   Navindra Yadav       Fabio Maino Filename    : draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt Pages   : 8 Date    : 2017-12-15 Abstract:    This d

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

Sounds good Luigi. I have just updated https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 that has now an intended status of standard track. We are ready for WG adoption. Thanks, Fabio On 12/15/17 1:08 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: On 14 Dec 2017, at 19:28, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

the call for adoption of GPE asap. If that works the WG could then proceed with the last call for 6830bis. Fabio So my personal preference would be to leave the protocol identification bit out of 6830bis. Yours, Joel On 12/14/17 12:59 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: Since there seem to be consensus

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

B. We merge the two documents. I do not have a preference, up to the WG to decide, but better to avoid document dependencies that will block publication. Ciao L. On 29 Nov 2017, at 23:32, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprot

Re: [lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]

. This should be the final updates to both specs. I’d like to request last call and possibly complete it before year-end. Is that possible chairs? Dino On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: I have refreshed the LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft

[lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]

available with shorter (16-bit vs 24-bit) Nonce/Map-Version fields Thanks, Fabio Forwarded Message Subject:[lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:32:40 -0800 From: Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> To: lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.

Re: [lisp] draft-kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport working group adoption

On 12/5/17 10:12 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: draft-kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport are looking for working-group adoption of the draft. The proposed solution replaces the UDP based control Augments. We cannot remove UDP since there is too much deployment. And TCP is not always

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

pport *Date: * Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:32:40 -0800 *From: * Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> <mailto:fma...@cisco.com> *To: * lisp@ietf.org <mailto:lisp@ietf.org> <lisp@ietf.org> <mailto:lisp@ietf.org> I would like to suggest a way to address mut

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

sounds good. Fabio On 11/29/17 3:13 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: I’d also add before the last sentence: If the N-bit and V-bit are 0 when the P-bit is set, the middle 16-bits are set to 0. Dino On Nov 29, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 11/29/17 3:05 PM

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

with the P-bit, the Version field is the middle 16 bits. Details on Next Protocol field usage are described in [draft-lewis-lisp-gpe]. Comments? much better. Thanks, Fabio Dino On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: Definition of the P bit will look like:

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

] for more details.   The P-bit is set to 1to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next Protocol field encoded as: Do you think the overall proposed extension makes sense? Thanks, Fabio On 11/29/17 2:38 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: On 11/29/17 2:36 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: The use of the P-bit

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

On 11/29/17 2:36 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: The use of the P-bit is not compatible with the Map-Versioning feature, but an equivalent function can be specified (if needed) with a Next-Protocol shim header. I can add text to the LISP-GPE draft to reflect that. Well it could be. Just like you

[lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprotocol support in RFC6830bis, that may address what was discussed in Singapore. This is based on using the last reserved bit in the LISP header as P bit to indicate support for multiprotocol encapsulation, as specified in the LISP-GPE draft

Re: [lisp] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13

Hi Takeshi, thanks for taking the time to review the document. Please see below for comments. Unless you have objections we plan to publish an updated rev by monday. On 10/10/17 7:58 AM, Takeshi Takahashi wrote: Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document

Re: [lisp] Last Call: (LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)) to Experimental RFC

Thanks Dino, we will update the text accordingly. Fabio On 9/22/17 9:57 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: The text looks good. I would just suggest on editorial change, substitute “Let’s consider” with “Consider”. Thanks, Dino On Sep 20, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrot

Re: [lisp] [ERRATA] Call for WG Adoption of Vendor Specific LCAF [draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-vendor-lcaf-00.txt]

support. Fabio On 7/26/17 4:16 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: The call ends August 10th 2017 ! Luigi On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:41, Luigi Iannone > wrote: Hi All, During the 99th IETF authors of the document draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-vendor-lcaf-00.txt

Re: [lisp] Call for WG Adoption of document draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02.txt

support On 5/19/17 2:06 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, Authors of the document draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02.txt [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs/] asked for WG adoption. This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. The call ends

Re: [lisp] Call for WG Adoption of document draft-moreno-lisp-vpn-00.txt

support On 4/12/17 2:29 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During the 98th IETF authors of the document draft-moreno-lisp-vpn-00.txt [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moreno-lisp-vpn-00] asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus on adoption. This message begins the two

Re: [lisp] Call for Agenda Items

Hi Dino, I think it's a good idea. Thanks for bringing it up, Fabio On 3/16/17 10:33 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: You know draft-meyer-lisp-mn has been published and refreshed for nearly 8 years. Can I present it after Victor presents draft-portoles-lisp-eid-mobility? I only need 10 minutes.

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt

of the IETF. Title : LISP-Security (LISP-SEC) Authors : Fabio Maino Vina Ermagan Albert Cabellos Damien Saucez Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt Pages

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis

I support adoption. Fabio On 11/16/16 11:58 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Folks, The chairs received a request for the following document to be adopted as a WG item: _https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis/_ Here starts a 14 day call for adoption, this call will end on

Re: [lisp] LISP-SEC review (finally)

with that SHOULD while implementing (most of) the rest of the RFC. Yours, Joel On 10/21/16 7:23 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: Ciao Luigi, below I have replied to each comment. I'm working to the updated text, that I will send as soon as it is ready. ideally we might be able to publish a new version

Re: [lisp] LISP-SEC review (finally)

Ciao Luigi, below I have replied to each comment. I'm working to the updated text, that I will send as soon as it is ready. ideally we might be able to publish a new version before draft deadline. Just a note on the most recurring comment: SHOULD vs. MUST. The use of SHOULD across the

Re: [lisp] LISP-SEC review (finally)

uot;Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. Authors' Addresses Fabio Maino Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, Californ

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-lisp-type-iana-01

I support creating a registry for LISP message types, and I think it would be useful to have an experimental type. Fabio On 7/15/16 1:56 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: His All, the chairs have review the WG discussion during the adoption call. We are concerned by the low level of support. We also

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12

This draft has been around for quite some time, and went through multiple reviews and editing cycles. I support handing it to the AD. Thanks, Fabio On 4/8/16 6:27 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During our meeting yesterday, the authors of the LISP LCAF document

Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

Looks good Luigi. Thanks, Fabio On 1/6/16 6:42 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, Hereafter a new version of the charter with the comments received so far. Please send more feedback. Would be good if we can send the charter to our AD by next week. ciao L.

Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

Hi Luigi, it looks good to me. One item that was mentioned at the last meeting was to include the work done so far on map server reliable transport. One possible way to include it is to change the very last bullet to something like: - Alternative Mapping System Design. By extending LISP

Re: [lisp] Adopting draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast?

support. Fabio On 12/5/15 6:14 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: This is a call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast. Please speak up if you support or oppose adoption of this document. It has been presented multiple times to the working group, generally to positive

Re: [lisp] Draft of new Proposed Charter

On 10/15/15 6:41 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi Fabio, On 14 Oct 2015, at 17:27, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 10/14/15 1:23 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi Fabio, thanks for the feedback. Are you saying that the scope of the proposed chart is too large? No, I think the scope i

Re: [lisp] Draft of new Proposed Charter

andard). _if_ the WG decides to take on this work it would very reasonable to go for experimental. ciao L. Albert On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: Joel, Luigi, thanks for taking a stab at this one. I think it covers the relevant aspects that

Re: [lisp] Comments to draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-00.txt

Hi Dino, thanks for your replay. The main goal of this draft is to document what is implemented in ODL (https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_Lisp_Flow_Mapping:Architecture), with the hope that comments and feedback will help us improve that solution, and facilitate

Re: [lisp] Standard Track

I support focusing on the overlay technology and associated use cases, and move the work to standard track. Fabio On 8/25/15 2:07 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Folks, so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? L. On 10

Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-02

Agree. It was recently refreshed from expiration, and I believe it's ready for last call. Fabio On 1/23/15 9:25 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: I would like to ask the working group if there are any issues with draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-02 and if there is any reason to not send this document for

Re: [lisp] [EXTENDED] draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07 - Call for WG Adoption

I support option 1. Fabio On 12/22/14, 7:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: To amplify Luigi's comment, we have several choices: 1) We can use this document as the basis for the working group action to address the milestone. 2) We can use something else as a basis for working group action to

Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

On 12/5/14, 9:36 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Hi Dino, I have no problems with the control plane part. An encap with multiprotocol support would allow to do IPsec encap before LISP encap, and could be used with the unauthenticated DH mechanism that you propose. Well

Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

On 12/5/14, 2:08 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: On 05/12/14 21:45, Fabio Maino wrote: On 12/5/14, 9:36 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Hi Dino, I have no problems with the control plane part. An encap with multiprotocol support would allow to do IPsec encap before LISP encap, and could be used

Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

I don't support adoption of this document. The document is proposing an extension of the LISP header to support data plane security. However, there has been quite a lot of discussion in various WGs, including LISP, about the need for a more flexible overlay encapsulation. Besides support for

Re: [lisp] Preliminary Agenda Available

Given that the impact draft is mentioned in the charter, can we push that item as the first of the non wg docs in the agenda? Thanks, Fabio -- Sent via my LISP-MN phone (LISPmob.org) Original message From: Luigi Iannone g...@gigix.net Date: 10/28/2014 4:42 AM (GMT-08:00)

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-lisp-introduction-07

The draft is a great introduction to LISP, and I believe the authors addressed very well the asks of the charter. I think this doc is ready to go to the AD. Fabio On 10/25/14, 5:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: All, A lot of work has been done lately on draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-07 and the

Re: [lisp] Updated abstract for lisp-introduction

Looks good Albert. Thanks, Fabio On 10/1/14, 4:50 PM, Albert Cabellos wrote: Hi all This is the new proposed abstract: This document describes the architecture of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), making it easier to read the rest of the LISP specifications and providing a basis for

Re: [lisp] draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-02.txt

is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : LISP Generic Protocol Extension Authors : Darrel Lewis Puneet Agarwal Larry Kreeger Fabio Maino

Re: [lisp] draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-02.txt

. If the group wishes to do so, I think that the flexibility added by GPE would allow to reintroduce some or all of those features. Fabio Yours, Joel On 7/8/14, 4:32 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: On 7/7/14, 5:27 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote: ... 4) section 4.1. LISP-gpe Routers to (legacy

Re: [lisp] Welcome a new co-chair

Congratulazioni Luigi! Your longstanding contribution to the WG has been key for the success of LISP, and I'm looking forward to work with you in this new role. Fabio On 3/18/14, 7:58 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: All, For those of you who have not noticed, I have added Luigi Iannone as a

Re: [lisp] Using LISP for Secure Hybrid Cloud Extension – Draft Submitted and Request for slot to present on IETF 89

Hi Joel, This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient encoding on the wire, (2)

[lisp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-03.txt

input for the nvo3 gap-analysis doc. Thanks, Fabio Original Message Subject:New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-03.txt Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:16:14 -0700 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Vina Ermagan verma...@cisco.com, Fabio Maino fma

Re: [lisp] Intro doc - to split, or not to split

Noel, sorry for the delay. In my opinion splitting may be better. The way I read the charter, we're asked to provide an intro to LISP that would guide the reader through the various docs of the LISP specification. I believe the doc, up to section 7, does a pretty good job in addressing that

  1   2   >