Approved and Merged. Padma
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:15 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) < na...@cisco.com> wrote: > Sounds good, updated. > > > > Alberto > > > > *From: *Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:02 PM > *To: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <na...@cisco.com> > *Cc: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com>, Luigi Iannone < > g...@gigix.net>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, > lisp-cha...@ietf.org <lisp-cha...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on > GitHub] > > I would phrase it “LISP xTRs” rather than “tunnel routers”. > > > > Dino > > > > On Oct 20, 2023, at 2:26 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) < > na...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Padma, > > > > Fixes seem fine to me, thanks! > > > > Maybe another suggestion, how about this text for mobility? > > “Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move > across different tunnel routers and/or tunnel routers that are themselves > mobile, hence, support needs to be provided in order to achieve seamless > connectivity.” > > > > https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/11/ > > > > Thanks! > > Alberto > > *From: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:53 AM > *To: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <na...@cisco.com> > *Cc: *Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net>, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>, > LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-cha...@ietf.org < > lisp-cha...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on > GitHub] > > Hi everyone, > > > > I fixed some nits and addressed my previous editorial comments on "Moving > to Standards Track:" and "Yang Model:". > > It can be found here https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/10/files. > > > > Let me know if you have any further comments. > > > > Thanks > > Padma > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:38 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault < > padma.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Approved and merged. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:05 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) < > na...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I just sent a PullRequest in GitHub with some edits. You can find it here: > https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/9 > > > > To keep the discussion on the list, here are the main points: > > - I switched the Name Encoding and Yang deliverable dates. I have action > items on both (shepherd for the first and author for the second), and I > feel Yang might require some time to get it done, while Name Encoding is > almost there. I don’t think flipping these two dates has major implications. > > > > - I removed this sentence from the Yang item: “These management methods > should be considered for both the data-plane, control plane, and mapping > system components.” I think it is probably redundant and it might confuse > more than clarify (isn’t mapping system a subset of control plane?) > > > > - I polished the language on the milestones to be consistent across the > different items (using the same sentence structure, etc). I also use > “document(s)” for the document bundles and those items further in the > future, so we are flexible in how to address them. > > > > Other than that, it’s just minor edits. Let me know if you have any > comment. > > > > Thanks! > > Alberto > > > > > > *From: *Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> > *Date: *Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 2:01 PM > *To: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>, LISP mailing list list < > lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-cha...@ietf.org <lisp-cha...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on > GitHub] > > Hi Dino, Padma, > > > > The list of milestones I proposed does not have more than 2 item per > deadline, which is reasonable to me. > > However, some milestones do indeed refer to several documents like Privacy > and Security, Multicast, and mobility. > > IMO there is no need to list the detailed documents and if we finish > before the schedule this is a plus not a problem. > > > > Since Nov 2023 is in 2 weeks I agree with Padma that there is no need to > rush. > > > > The name encoding document was indeed missing, since it is a simple > document we can publish it by March 2024. > > > > The update list looks like: > > > > 1. November 2023: Submit a LISP Yang model document to the IESG for > consideration > > 2. March 2024: Submit LISP Traffic Engineering document to the IESG for > consideration > > 3. March 2024: Submit LISP Reliable Transport document to the IESG for > consideration > > 4. March 2024: Submit LISP Name Encoding document to the IESG for > consideration > > 5. June 2024 : Submit LISP geo-coordinates to the IESG for consideration > > 6. June 2024: Submit a LISP NAT Traversal document to the IESG for > consideration > > 7. November 2024: Submit 8111bis to the IESG for consideration > > 8. November 2024: Submit merged LCAFbis document to the IESG for > consideration > > 9. March 2025: Submit LISP Privacy and Security documents to the IESG for > consideration > > 10. March 2025: Submit 6832bis Proxy XTRs document to the IESG for > consideration > > 11. June 2025: Submit LISP Mobile documents to the IESG for consideration > > 12. November 2025: Submit Multicast documents to the IESG for consideration > > 13. March 2026: Submit LISP Applicability document to the IESG for > consideration > > 14. November 2026: Wrap-Up or recharter > > > > > > Better? > > > > L. > > > > > > On Oct 17, 2023, at 01:46, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Dino > > > > The groupings look good! > > > > Some dates look too aggressive Nov 2023: draft-ietf-lisp-geo, > draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (Standards Track). We are > already there ... > > As the dates proposed are target dates, i suggest we keep the date of June > 2024 but if we can go faster it is all good. thoughts? > > > > Similar comment for mobility. > > > > Thanks > > Padma > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:35 PM Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > What do you think of putting some major milestones for mobility and > security sections rather than per document? > > I think security is further out compared to mobility. Just because other > groups will have to peer-review the security documents. But good suggestion > and will incldue below the set that go together (IMO). > > So here is what I suggest: > > For June 2024: Mobility documents as a set to IESG, which include: > > draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility, draft-ietf-lisp-mn, > draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs, draft-ietf-lisp-vpn > > And for June 2025: Security documents as a set to IESG, which include: > > draft-ietf-lisp-crypto (RFC8061 to Standards Track), > draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity > > And then, not related to what you asked for, to put all LCAF related stuff > in one set: > > For Nov 2023: > > draft-ietf-lisp-geo, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 > (Standards Track) > > What do you think? > > Dino > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
