Dave,

The task consisting in discovering by experimentation architectural fit
(wrt initial objectives) and complement understanding wrt known
challenges (mapping, caching, loc.reachability, impact on traffic
spatio-temporal properties) is very different in nature than ensuring
interoperability among protocols, minimize operational impact, and
facilitate integration/deployability -> so requiring different type of
efforts with different timelines. As a matter of fact, both types of
activities are still required imho. 

So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can
we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the
issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges
open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should
happen in the context of a BoF. 

Thanks,
-dimitri.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Meyer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:08 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG 
> as to whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
> 
> 
>       Folks,
> 
>       The IESG would like to know whether people believe that
>       we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the
>       next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary.
> 
>       Here are the current facts on the ground:
> 
>       o We have fairly mature set of core drafts
>       o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts
>       o Significant global deployment is underway
>       o We have 2 (or more) implementations
>       o We have been discussing a draft charter (see update below)
> 
>       The question is that I would like folks to respond to is
>        "Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda
>        (see below), or should we have another BOF?"
> 
>       Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can
>       close on these administrative issues. 
> 
>       Thanks,
> 
>       Dave
> --
> 
> LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)
> 
> Last Modified: 2009-01-20
> 
> Chair(s):
>  TBD
> 
> Internet Area Director(s):
>  TBD
> 
> Routing Area Advisor:
>  TBD
> 
> Secretary(ies):
>  TBD
>  
> Mailing Lists:
>  General Discussion: [email protected]
> 
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that
> respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006
> Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to
> form a working group whose charter (see below) is to work on the
> design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system
> [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working
> group will encourage and support interoperable LISP
> implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate
> mapping systems. The Working Group may also create EID-prefix
> assignment guidelines for RIRs, as well as security profiles for
> the ALT (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR
> working group).
> 
> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> Mar 2010  Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for
>           Experimental.
> 
> Mar 2010  Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for
>           Experimental.
> 
> Mar 2010  Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG
>         for Experimental.
> 
> June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Allocation and Routing
>         of both EIDs and RLOCs to the IESG for Experimental.
> 
> June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping
>         System to the IESG for Experimental.
> 
> July 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for
>         Experimental. 
> 
> Aug  2010  Re-charter or close.
> 
> Internet-Drafts:
>       draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt
>       draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt
>       draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
>       draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt
> 
> Request For Comments:
>         None
> 
> 
> References
> ----------
> [0]     Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on
>         Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984.
> 
> [1]     Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>         (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt.
> 
> [2]   Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology
>       (LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
> 
> [3]   Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation
>       Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt.
> 
> [4]   Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and
>       IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt.
> 
> [5]   Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map
>       identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt.
> 
> [6]     Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
>       "LISP for Multicast Environments",
>       draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt.  
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to