Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2017-01-18 Thread Dino Farinacci
Right. Agree with your interpretation. I hope authors can make this clear based on your suggestions. Thanks, Dino > On Jan 17, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > Dino Farinacci writes: >>> Both of these servers process Map-Request messages,

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2017-01-17 Thread Dale R. Worley
Dino Farinacci writes: >> Both of these servers process Map-Request messages, albeit with >> different semantics. Hence the D bit in Map-Request messages is needed >> to differentiate which server is to process a given Map-Request message. > > The reason I explained the

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2017-01-17 Thread Dino Farinacci
> I reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08, and my memory is that the only > significant technical question was regarding the "D" bit in Map-Request > messages. Let me try to make this more clear for you Dale. Thanks for the comment. > Thinking back on it, I believe that the difficulty I was having was

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2017-01-17 Thread Dale R. Worley
I reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08, and my memory is that the only significant technical question was regarding the "D" bit in Map-Request messages. Thinking back on it, I believe that the difficulty I was having was with the explanation of the D bit, not its functionality. In particular, a DDT

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2017-01-11 Thread Dino Farinacci
Is there any status on the draft-ietf-lisp-ddt? This document is blocking many other documents in the RFC editor queue. Dino > On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > Okay, thanks for the effort. > > Dino > >> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Anton Smirnov

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2016-11-04 Thread Anton Smirnov
Hi Dino, given the scope of comments and need for review between authors it may be difficult. We will make an effort to achieve this date but right now I can't guarantee this. Anton On Tuesday 01 November 2016 22:55, Dino Farinacci wrote: Great to hear. Is the goal to publish the new

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2016-11-01 Thread Dino Farinacci
Great to hear. Is the goal to publish the new draft on Monday of IETF week? Dino > On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote: > > Hello Dino, > > thanks for taking time to answer these concerns. Authors will work on the > revised text to incorporate those

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2016-11-01 Thread Anton Smirnov
Hello Dino, thanks for taking time to answer these concerns. Authors will work on the revised text to incorporate those points. Anton On Sunday 16 October 2016 22:43, Dino Farinacci wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

2016-10-16 Thread Dino Farinacci
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at >