Subject: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:42:02 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used in an
experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have missed
the discussion in the archive.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the request template, the dates should match the ones in
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020.

---

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:51:02 +0100

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
<snip>

That's a good question. This document is the management part extracted
from the other draft so it copied the status from the other document.
I guess the question is if both should change status to Experimental
or if they're fine as they are?

They've been edited at different times, and it is a 3year experiment
so the date will have to be adjusted in both document if they're
approved,  before they can be published.

Other document is draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:26:04 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

as Roger pointed out there was no explicit discussion about informational vs experimental.

Certainly if the IESG feels that experimental is more suitable (which actually IMHO does) 
we can change the document intended status for both the management and allocation documents.

For the dates, they can be adjusted before going in the roc editor queue.

ciao

L.

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:58:56 -0500

Hi all,

> as Roger pointed out there was no explicit discussion about informational vs experimental.

I believe I suggested Informational for the address block request when I
was the shepherding AD for LISP.  The block management draft inherited
that status when it was split out.

> we can change the document intended status for both the management and allocation documents.

I didn't think Experimental was appropriate because the intent was not
to describe any experimentation in the block request draft.

If the IESG believes Experimental is appropriate, I would support adding
text to the document that describes the exit criteria for the experiment.

> For the dates, they can be adjusted before going in the roc editor queue.

Agreed.

Brian