Hey Danny, > If there's actually *significant* work to be done, versus > simply publishing what's already done (e.g., [1] [2] [4] > & [6]) as Experimental,
There are all kinds of things to do. Obviously, even the
most "core" of the Internet protocols continue to evolve
(frequently at an amazing rate). So it would seem
unreasonable (at least to me) to postulate that something
as relatively recent as LISP would not be continuously
evolving. Heck, every other Internet protocol is I know
of is.
> 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.
Well, while that may or may not be true, I've never been
a fan of the RFC Editor route. That is not to say that I
don't have a great deal of respect for the folks over at
the RFC editor; quite to the contrary, I very much
do. However, we as a community need to have confidence
that that the IESG will do the right thing. If we don't,
we need to take action now (read: do what you can to make
the NOMCOM work, volunteer for the NOMCOM, up for the I*,
provide seriously considered guidance to the NOMCOM,
etc).
In any event, I appreciate your perspective.
> That said, I think a big part of the reason you guys are
> still pushing for a BOF,
We've been talking about BOFs with the IESG because that
is the normal IETF process. It was only after we were
informated that we might not have to do a BOF (by the
IESG) that the "direct to WG" option emerged.
That said, we obviously want to work transparently within
process while trying to get a WG chartered. If there is
another way to get (other than BOF) there within the IETF
process that is more efficient, I'm for that too. But
process needs to be followed. More transparency, more
better.
> 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.
Well said.
> 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?
Nothing that I know of. We've been really pushing our
company not to take IPR on LISP, for what I hope are
obvious reasons. Dino has been the lead on this front.
> Also, of the "2 (or more)" implementations, are there
> multiple vendors involved there or just one?
The only vendor I know of that is implementing LISP is
Cisco.
> Thanks Dave!
Hey, its my pleasure.
Thanks,
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
