NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to Routing Locator (RLOC) Database
draft-lear-lisp-nerd-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-05-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my concerns |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-04-20
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-04-20
|
09 | Eliot Lear | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-09.txt |
2012-04-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-04-12
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-12
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2012-04-12
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ralph Droms handed over responsibility for this document to Brian Haberman, because Ralph, the author and the IETF LISP leads all work for the same … Ralph Droms handed over responsibility for this document to Brian Haberman, because Ralph, the author and the IETF LISP leads all work for the same employer. The RFC 5742 review was performed by Ralph; to be reviewed and confirmed or updated by Brian. |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Yes |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot comment] I support Stewart's DISCUSS. The distinction between this document and the other LISP documents, which are also EXPERIMENTAL, is subtle and likely to … [Ballot comment] I support Stewart's DISCUSS. The distinction between this document and the other LISP documents, which are also EXPERIMENTAL, is subtle and likely to be lost on the reader. |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I think a paragraph putting this into context (as per Eliot's mail) would be very valuable for the reader who might otherwise … [Ballot comment] - I think a paragraph putting this into context (as per Eliot's mail) would be very valuable for the reader who might otherwise think this is the "mainstream" experiment. - Do you really want to refer to ITU-T x.509 rather than rfc5280 for certificates? - I think you could note that key roll-over and key distribution generally are for future study. - You could even mention the potential for using DANE if you wanted as a different PKI as another possibility for future study. - CMS is widely deployed (all S/MIME clients include it) but you could still say pkcs#7 is more widely supported by libraries and tools. - There doesn't seem to be any way to limit an authority to certain EIDs and/or RLOCs, such as is done by SIDR. Might be worth noting? - If you need revocation checks as part of signature validation, then you probably ought say that that's not included in the analysis in section 5. |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] I am putting a discuss on this because I think that the IESG needs to talk about this draft. I will clear the … [Ballot discuss] I am putting a discuss on this because I think that the IESG needs to talk about this draft. I will clear the discuss on the call. I think that the document needs some text in the introduction making it clear that the purpose of this draft is to record some early thoughts on this subject by the author. Otherwise the RFC will be too easily confused with the ordinary output of the LISP WG. The approach described seems a viable way of running LISP and thus I am not sure why this is not being taken through the WG or as AD sponsored. I understand the history is that this work pre-dated the WG, but there is now a WG. |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I am surprised that the author did not tackle the database version wrap problem by providing some really large number that could never … [Ballot comment] I am surprised that the author did not tackle the database version wrap problem by providing some really large number that could never wrap (128 bits springs to mind). Given the size of the payload, the size of the database header seems unlikely to be an issue. |
2012-04-11
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-04-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman from Ralph Droms |
2012-04-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I agree that this document should be published as a record of one way of doing the LISP mapping. The following commentary is … [Ballot comment] I agree that this document should be published as a record of one way of doing the LISP mapping. The following commentary is really meant for the IESG and the ISE... Given that there does not appear to be any effort to actually implement this specification, does it make sense to publish it as Experimental? It would seem that Informational would be a fine way to document this approach. If I follow some of the arguments that Pete and Ron have made recently, I would even support the publication of this document as Historical, but I am not sure if the ISE can do that. |
2012-04-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-04-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-04-06
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-06
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-06
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-04-06
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-03
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-03
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-03
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Record from Discuss |
2012-04-02
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-31
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] There is no author action required for this Discuss. The target is the 5742-AD Per email exchanges with the AD and one of … [Ballot discuss] There is no author action required for this Discuss. The target is the 5742-AD Per email exchanges with the AD and one of the LISP WG chairs, I believe the IESG response suggested is wrong. I think we should respond to the ISE with RFC 5742 option 2 (related to LISP WG, but no impact). |
2012-03-31
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] It would be (would have been) really helpful if the write-up (had) included a description of the history of the interaction with the … [Ballot comment] It would be (would have been) really helpful if the write-up (had) included a description of the history of the interaction with the LISP working group on this I-D, and a summary of why the working group did not believe this work should be either a WG draft or AD sponsored within the IETF stream. It is not too late to add this information to the write-up, and I think it would be useful for history. |
2012-03-31
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-03-22
|
08 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-04-12 |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-20
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was generated |
2011-12-16
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Setting stream while adding document to the tracker |
2011-12-16
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Stream changed to ISE from |
2011-10-19
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list has been changed to lear@cisco.com, draft-lear-lisp-nerd@tools.ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org from lear@cisco.com, draft-lear-lisp-nerd@tools.ietf.org |
2011-10-19
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-10-19
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-10-18
|
08 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Russ Housley |
2011-10-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The draft draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The … The draft draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The following is some background for this draft, please forward it to IESG along with this request ... This draft "presents an experimental database and a discussion of methods to transport the mapping of EIDs to RLOCs to routers in a reliable, scalable, and secure manner." It was reviewed (back in Dec 2009) by Joel Halpern, and has been improved steadily since then. It was dormant when I started as ISE early last year, and has become active again now that other LISP drafts are nearing publication. As far as I can tell, this is work that supports that being done in the lisp WG, and is well understood by that WG. Thanks, Nevil (ISE) |
2011-10-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-10-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-10-20 |
2010-03-06
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08.txt |
2010-01-11
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-07.txt |
2009-12-16
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-06.txt |
2009-12-14
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-05.txt |
2008-04-11
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-04.txt |
2008-01-23
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-03.txt |
2007-09-21
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-02.txt |
2007-06-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-01.txt |
2007-06-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-lear-lisp-nerd-00.txt |