Re: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Luigi" == Luigi Iannone <luigi at net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

    Luigi> New proposed one:

    Luigi> draft-iannone-lisp-mapping-versioning-00 proposes
    Luigi> introducing the optional possibility for LISP header to
    Luigi> transport map version numbers. Luigi will provide a new
    Luigi> version of the draft which will include both discussion
    Luigi> from the mailinglist as well as the discussion with all
    Luigi> LISP developers. This means that all the details of the map
    Luigi> versioning support will be detailed in the versioning draft
    Luigi> and not in the main LISP specs.  After publication of the
    Luigi> new map versioning draft, the WG will discuss its technical
    Luigi> validity and how to proceed with the work.



The major intent in my mind when opening issue #16 was to figure out
if we had consensus behind text in LISP 04.  (We did not and ended up
removing the r-bit).
The chairs' consensus call on the issue is attached below.

>Darrel and I have discussed the resolution of the map versioning
>proposal.
>
>At this point, the WG has not received a request to adopt Luigi's
>draft, although he indicated we might receive such a request in the
>future.

>The chairs believe that we'd need to see somewhat more support for a
>specific proposal than we've seen for map versioning to date in order
>to adopt that proposal.  If we did receive sufficient support to adopt
>something as a WG draft, assigning the flag would be easy.


So, I think the next step is to update the draft and to when you are
ready to ask the WG if it is interested in adopting the work.  We'd
want to have discussion on the list and probably discussion in a
face-to-face meeting.

However we definitely can update the description of an issue in the
tracker.