Subject: [lisp] New revs of draft-ietf-lisp and draft-ietf-lisp-multicast

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:26:09 -0700

Folks, the chairs have asked the authors to post a new revision of  
draft-ietf-lisp, draft-ietf-lisp-multicast, draft-ietf-lisp-ms, draft- 
ietf-lisp-alt, and draft-ietf-lisp-interwork to conclude working group  
last call.

The latter 3 are coming but the main and multicast drafts have been  
posted, the drafts are enclosed, and diff files are enclosed.

Here are a summary of changes:

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt

    o  Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.

    o  Tracker item 87.  Put Yakov suggested wording in the EID-prefix
       definition section to reference [INTERWORK] and [LISP-DEPLOY]
       about discussion on transition and access mechanisms.

    o  Change "ITRs" to "ETRs" in the Locator Status Bit definition
       section and data packet description section per Damien's comment.

    o  Remove the normative reference to [LISP-SEC] when describing the
       S-bit in the ECM and Map-Reply headers.

    o  Tracker item 54.  Added text from John Scudder in the "Packets
       Egressing a LISP Site" section.

    o  Add sentence to the "Reencapsulating Tunnel" definition about how
       reencapsulation loops can occur when not coordinating among
       multiple mapping database systems.

    o  Remove "In theory" from a sentence in the Security Considerations
       section.

    o  Remove Security Area Statement title and reword section with
       Eliot's provided text.  The text was agreed upon by LISP-WG  
chairs
       and Security ADs.

    o  Remove word "potential" from the over-claiming paragraph of the
       Security Considerations section per Stephen's request.

    o  Wordsmithing and other editorial comments from Alia.

A.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt

    o  Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.

    o  Added paragraph to section 8.1.2 based on Jesus comment about
       making it more clear what happens when two (S-EID,G) trees use  
the
       same (RLOC,G) tree.

    o  Make more references to [INTWORK] when mentioning uPITRs and
       uPETRs.

    o  Made many changes based on editorial and wordsmithing comments
       from Alia.

Thanks,
Dino/Darrel/Vince/Dave/Stig/JohnZ