Subject: Re: [lisp] MS/MR message specs

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:38:24 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Uma Devi Bandaru <[email-masked]>

    > I assumed (wrongly) that these details would be within the MS/MR
    > spec alone.

I have felt for some years now that the main LISP spec document has gotten
too long and unwieldy, and could profitably be split up, and this is one
example of that. (Another is the lack of a LISP architecture document -
the basic LISP document sort of covers that, but not as well as a separate
document could/would.)

As far as I can recall, Map-Request/Map-Reply messages are only used in
the MR/MS interface context, and so it would indeed be reasonable to
expect them to be specified in that document.

However, there does not seem to be consensus here to re-partition the
documents, but to leave them as they are (basically).

	Noel

---

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:43:50 -1000

2 cents
I find having all the packet formats in one document very helpful
since I find myself often looking at TCPdumps.  (often enough anyway)

On May 12, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:31:05 -0400

I am certainly feeling the lack of a LISP architecture document and
inconsistencies
between some of the drafts (comments coming once I've finished reading through
them all).

Alia

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    > From: Uma Devi Bandaru <[email-masked]>
>
>    > I assumed (wrongly) that these details would be within the MS/MR
>    > spec alone.
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:46:11 -0700

> since I find myself often looking at TCPdumps.  (often enough anyway)

In 1989 we said the same thing about the OSPF spec. It turned out to  
be well over 100 pages. But it wasn't split up, and as an implementor,  
it made life extremely simpler to implement a protocol where all the  
information is in one place.

The LISP main spec is 84 pages where most of the it text about the  
architecture. But as Z says, all the packet formats are in one place.

Just think if the map-server spec, alt spec, interworking, and  
deployment were in one draft, like some have suggested.

I believe we chose a decent medium.

Dino

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:46:54 -0700

That is a function of many drafts with many authors from 100s of  
contributors. We welcome your comments.

Dino

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:54:48 -0400

Whenever there are lots of authors and drafts, there are also minor issues.
I just want to get through all the drafts (7 in 2 weeks is a LOT to parse and
poke for inconsistencies and outstanding issues) to make sure I capture
the differences into what I think is the appropriate draft.  Your mileage will
vary, I'm sure.

I think there's also some cases where state is just so well-known in the WG
that it never quite made it into the drafts... but I haven't read
lisp-12 vs. lisp-11 yet.

Alia

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:59:24 -0700

> poke for inconsistencies and outstanding issues) to make sure I  

Right, we appreciate it, but why did you wait so long?   ;-)

> the differences into what I think is the appropriate draft.  Your  

Right.

> that it never quite made it into the drafts... but I haven't read

There are on minor changes between the two. Use the diff file to make  
it easier for you.

Dino

>>> between some of the drafts (comments coming once I've finished  
>>> reading
>>> through
>>> them all).
>>>
>>> Alia
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked] 
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>