Hi Ross, It seems to me that you and Dimitri are talking about things that the RRG should be doing as it moves towards conclusions. I don't see why they would be in scope for an IETF LISP WG, where we would ask for a tight and achievable focus.
Obviously there's a risk in chartering a LISP WG now: that the RRG will come out with a significantly different recommendation at some date in the future. The IESG can decide to take that risk if it likes. But I don't see the point in a second BOF; the idea that a BOF could resolve in a couple of hours the issues that the RRG has been discussing since early 2007 seems unlikely. Brian On 2009-01-22 05:26, Ross Callon wrote: > In order to make an ID/Loc split work on an Internet-wide ubiquitous > scale, we need very good solutions and/or greater understanding to some > hard questions such as what will be the granularity of the mapping > function (how large will the mapping table be and what granularity of > prefix will be in it), how to do the mapping, how to do liveness > detection, what the scaling properties of the mapping and liveness > detection functions is likely to be, and what the manageability, > security, and robustness implications are. I guess that while we are at > it we need to figure out if there are other issues, such as MTU, that > need consideration. > > If you want to do experimentation on a moderate scale, then answers to > these questions are not strictly needed. > > I didn't see any of these "hard issues" explicitly mentioned in the > proposed charter (although there is mention of "the LISP+ALT mapping > system"). Is this because the effort is intended to be focused on the > shorter term experimentation efforts (including experimental protocol > specs that allow the immediate experiments to occur), for which these > hard issues do not need to be answered? > > Thanks, Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Eliot Lear > Sent: 21 January 2009 08:56 > To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lisp] [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG > as to whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > On 1/21/09 2:12 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: >> All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively oriented toward >> LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking: >> > Right. This is a LISP WG. There is nothing stopping anyone from > creating another WG, assuming the work warrants it. And again, the > output is experimental docs. No standardization choices are being made. > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
