Can we also please add “LISP Map Server Reliable transport” to TODO list (we
have already been working on)
Thanks
Balaji
From: lisp <lisp-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of lisp-requ...@ietf.org
<lisp-requ...@ietf.org>
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:46 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: lisp Digest, Vol 172, Issue 10
Send lisp mailing list submissions to
lisp@ietf.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lisp-requ...@ietf.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
lisp-ow...@ietf.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lisp digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items
currently in the charter but not finished
(Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal))
2. Re: Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST: these are
a bunch of RFC that may be considered
(Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:45:45 +0000
From: "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <na...@cisco.com>
To: Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list"
<lisp@ietf.org>
Cc: "lisp-cha...@ietf.org" <lisp-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work
items currently in the charter but not finished
Message-ID:
<byapr11mb3591e63961b09bd3964c4596b6...@byapr11mb3591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one
Agree. This is very high on the TODO list.
Alberto
From: Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org list <lisp@ietf.org>
Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org <lisp-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently in the
charter but not finished
Hi LISP WG,
As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: Promised work item:
work items currently in the charter but not finished
There are a bunch of unfinished WG drafts promised in the charter, namely:
LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything should
we enlarge the scope?
LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one
LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document
The above documents look like we should make an effort and finish them.
There are also a bunch of WG documents that for which we should decide what to
do (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/documents/)
Does the WG consider we need to move all of them forward (and in this case we
need people to commit in finishing them) or should some of them be dropped?
Please send us back your thoughts.
Padma and Luigi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/attachments/20230317/c1e9a0ed/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:45:52 +0000
From: "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <na...@cisco.com>
To: Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list"
<lisp@ietf.org>
Cc: "lisp-cha...@ietf.org" <lisp-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST:
these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered
Message-ID:
<byapr11mb3591f566280580f60d351607b6...@byapr11mb3591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> RFC 8060: LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [This is largely used and may
> be merged with 9306]
Merging the two makes good sense to me.
Alberto
From: Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:47 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org list <lisp@ietf.org>
Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org <lisp-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST: these are a bunch of
RFC that may be considered
Hi LISP WG,
As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: From Experimental
to ST: these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered to move ST
There are a few experimental RFCs which is worth to be considered to be moved
to standard track (if we have documented deployment experience), namely:
RFC 6832: Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and
Non-LISP Sites
RFC 8060: LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [This is largely used and may be
merged with 9306]
RFC 8111: Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)
[The only scalable Mapping System so far?..]
Multicast can be another one work item.
RFC 6831: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments
RFC 8378: Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast
Please send us back your thoughts.
Padma and Luigi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/attachments/20230317/f9600157/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
------------------------------
End of lisp Digest, Vol 172, Issue 10
*************************************
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
