DNS Resource Records for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Ralph Droms) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
Comment (2012-05-24 for -03)
I agree with the Discuss and Comments entered by Adrian
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-05-23 for -03)
The LISP documents (currently in the RFC Editor Queue for publication as Experimental RFCs in the IETF Stream) have clear and unambiguous text to caution the user about the unknown side-effects of conducting the experiment on the Internet. For example, draft-ietf-lisp-23 says: This experimental specification has areas that require additional experience and measurement. It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment beyond experimental situations. Results of experimentation may lead to modifications and enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in this document. See Section 15 for specific, known issues that are in need of further work during development, implementation, and experimentation. An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic, applications, routers, and security is for future study. This analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing and will also look at scalability and levels of state required for encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on. It seems to me highly desirable that similar caveats be applied to this work and added to the front of all ILNP documents. I strongly urge the authors and IRSG to apply such text.