Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:55:56 -0700

Terry,

> I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a
> work group item.
> 
> Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion.
> 
> I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting
> that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion.
> 
> I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding code
> points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those
> comments in the process of developing this draft.

I note that you have called consensus to adopt draft-farinacci-
lisp-lcaf as a LISP working group document. This document describes
its use for L2VPN. Could you please explain where this is covered
in the current LISP working group charter.

Yakov.

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:31 -0700

Hi Yakov,

I disagree with you that it describes its use for L2VPN. It provides the
ability to use a MAC as an EID. There are no normative verbs used, and
noting the experimental nature of the draft I must admit that I am
struggling to see the basis for your objection given that the LCAF draft is
an underlying modification to the LISP control messages (in that it does
fall in the mandate of the charter).

Putting on my 'research advocacy' hat, and highlighting that all of the
protocol documents issued by LISP are chartered to be experimental, I feel
perfectly comfortable having the documents from the LISP experiment not shy
away from the existence of, or the possibility of, encapsulating other
address formats.

I will draw a line the minute the LISP WG attempts to impose or change
behaviors on the documented work from another chartered WG, and will happily
direct (as written in the charter) any such work to the appropriate WG.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:19:50 -0400

I find this email confusing. Can you explain when you would use a MAC ID as the EID, and yet *not* have this be an L2VPN? Routing packets based on a MAC ID over a layer 3 network seems to me to be pretty close to the definition of a layer 2 VPN. 

Thanks, Ross

PS: I dropped the IESG from the CC line since I don't think that the entire IESG wants to follow this. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Terry Manderson
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:44 PM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: LISP mailing list list; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

Hi Yakov,

Cheers
Terry

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:52:55 -0400

The definition of how to actually perform such forwarding would have to 
be done in (or in close collaboration with) the L2VPN WG.  This document 
does not define how that is done.  It reserves a code point for 
identifying the specific kind of information, if someone does want to do it.

I have sent a notification to the chairs of all the related working 
groups that I could identify to let them know of this document.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/7/2012 11:19 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>