On Jan 20, 2009, at 12:07 PM, David Meyer wrote:
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?"
If there's actually *significant* work to be done, versus
simply publishing what's already done (e.g., [1] [2] [4]
& [6]) as Experimental, then I'd think going straight to a
WG - versus yet another LISP BOF, is prudent.
However, seeing that absent the RIR and Security charter
goals, all the other work would seem to be pretty well baked
(esp. given the "2 (or more) implementations" bit), those
specifications could certainly be submitted to the RFC
Editor right now for publication as Experimental without
IESG review.
That said, I think a big part of the reason you guys are
still pushing for a BOF, and have been so active in the
operations forums with this, is to get feedback and encourage
work on what's there so far, and that makes me. And it
is nice to see some real action in the area, and I think
there's a great deal to learn from evaluation of LISP or
ANY similar protocol folks wish to gain implementation and
operational experience with. Sheesh, there's still lots to
learn with BGP, apparently.
IF another BOF is inevitable, then I'd quite certainly
expect the sponsoring AD(s) to VERY clearly outline
straight-forward WG-forming success criteria.
Two other questions..
I don't see anything in the IETF IPR disclosure repository
around this work, even though it's been around for quite a
while. Do you know or can you speak of any intentions
there?
Also, of the "2 (or more)" implementations, are there
multiple vendors involved there or just one?
Thanks Dave!
-danny
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
