I wanted to provide some background on this question.
As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis we
had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation and
small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing its
work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions, including
map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations thereof. I do
not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time we are NOT
considering any IETF standards in this area. We are, however,
potentially interested in working groups targeting experimental
specifications so that we can get more experience about the various
technical solutions, different people can build systems that work
together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP effort; they
also had a working group that produced experimental RFCs to complement
the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP group.
My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic was
very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time they
felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also technical
debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on the WG
formation question. So I did not view the results as final.
Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create some
form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the proponents were
only interested in a working group.
So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts as
well. We got feedback in the BOF, there's been further discussion, and
work on various fronts has progressed. Its time to complete the
discussion about the fate of this effort. We need to see if additional
information or further changes can result in a WG proposal that is
acceptable to the community or not. If we can reach a decision on the
list, fine, if not I will reserve a second BOF slot for the discussion.
I am mindful of the fact that the list discussion may not reach quite
the same crowd as a f2f meeting, so unless we get a fairly strong signal
in the list we probably need to meet as well.
But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how people
feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF WG, what the
scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And if not, what
would make it so.
Dave, can you post a summary of changes in the proposed charter since
the first BOF? I see that you have already posted some information on
what is going on in the implementation front -- that was very useful,
thanks. Has there been other significant events since last summer?
Jari
P.S. Maybe we should reply on just one list from now on. Please use,
say, int-area because I do not think everyone's on the lisp list.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
