Dimitri, > 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.
The purpose of this WG would be to take the *LISP*
documents to EXPERIMENTAL. That is what I had in mind
when I wrote the charter, and I believe that it is pretty
clear on this point. That is not to say it the charter
can't be further tightened (I'm sure it can).
A you know, WGs need to be tightly focused, especially in
the case of protocol groups. I'll grant you that my
experience with WGs in the OPs area are somewhat more
open-ended (at least mine have been), but it seems
unlikely that an IETF WG could successfully produce both
tight protocol specs and broad architectural surveys and
analyzes. In fact, I can't think of a case in which this
has been done in the IETF (perhaps there is one, but it
doesn't readily come to mind). Add to that that LISP is
clearly in an engineering and deployment phase, coupled
with the fact that producing engineering specs what the
IETF is good at (well, that is the IETF does), and one
sees that finishing up the LISP specs in the IETF seems
only natural.
That said, it is a fine thing for the RRG to continue to
do what its doing, and further, the document you've been
describing on the RRG list should continue to progress
(IMO of course). In fact, these activities are completely
complementary. So keep up the good work.
Just one point on your argument:
> 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.
It would seem that one could apply the same argument to
SHIM6, HIP, SCTP, and several other protocols that have
been or are being standardized.
So my question to you is:
(i). Given your argument above, do you believe that
say, the SHIM6 WG should not have been chartered
(or perhaps that the SIGTRAN WG, which produced
RFCs 4960 and 3286) should not have been
chartered? Clearly they did not have such an
analysis, or we wouldn't be talking about doing
it now (and again, that is not to say there isn't
a ton of literature on loc/id split).
(ii). If on the other hand you believe that, say SHIM6
should have been chartered, the question is why
(again, given your argument above)?
Note that I'm not taking a stand on this either
way. Rather, I'm just following the logic of your
argument.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
