Yes. I think we've discussed and reached conclusions on everything except whether to add text on the IPv6 UDP zero checksum topic. Could I suggest submission of a -12 version of the draft that captures everything that's been discussed/resolved? Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:38 AM > To: Black, David > Cc: Dino Farinacci; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; Albert Cabellos; Damien > Saucez; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B] > > > > On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same output as > its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved). > > The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" and that > needs to be corrected. > > > > Excellent progress thanks. > > So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer multicast > groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the underlay > provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay. > > Did I get it right? > > L. > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@xxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM > >> To: Black, David > >> Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; Albert Cabellos; Damien > >> Saucez; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B] > >> > >> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control overlay's > group > >> address allocation. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely clear > that > >>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that mapping > >>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> --David > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@xxxxxxxxx] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM > >>>> To: Luigi Iannone > >>>> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; Albert Cabellos; > Damien > >>>> Saucez; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 > >>>> > >>>>> G-EID => the EID multicast group G > >>>>> G-RLOC => the RLOC multicast group G > >>>> > >>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP > multicast > >>>> documents. > >>>> > >>>> Dino