• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: lisp

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-01-25 00:24 (System)

RFC published

2012-08-22 10:03 (System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stewart Bryant

2012-08-22 10:03 (System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks

2012-08-22 10:03 (System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel

2012-08-22 10:03 (System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley

2012-08-22 10:03 (System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ronald Bonica

2012-03-13 13:45 (System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack

2012-03-07 07:56 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-03-06 07:56 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-03-06 07:56 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-03-06 07:56 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-03-06 07:56 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-03-06 07:55 Amy Vezza

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-03-05 23:29 Jari Arkko

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-03-01 12:37 Ralph Droms

[Ballot comment]
I've cleared my Discuss.

2012-03-01 12:37 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph E. Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-03-01 12:13 Luigi Iannone

New revision available

2012-02-14 14:06 Ralph Droms

[Ballot discuss]
Updated for rev -08, 2/14/2012

These Discuss points all related to the methods in section 5.1

1. What does an ITR do with a received datagram that contains a map
version number that is older than the current map entry? Section 5.1
describes how the ITR sends Map-Request messages and discards the
received packet if the TTL has expired for the received version
number. However, I don't see an explicit rule for discarding or
processing an otherwise valid datagram for which has been delivered to
an ITR that is willing to route the datagram to the destination EID.

2. Does the ITR need to keep TTL information for all previous map
versions to be able to determine if the TTL for those early map
versions have expired?

3. I don't recall the rule in the base LISP spec (if there is one)
that describes how an ITR responds to a received datagram with a
destination EID that the ITR is unwilling to forward. If the ITR
discards such a datagram, does it first check the map version number?

2012-02-14 02:40 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my concerns

2012-02-14 02:40 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.