Subject: [lisp] updated LISP WG charter

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:26:03 -0800

Sorry about that, for some reason the updated version
	didn't make it into my last email. Here's the update.

	Dave
--

LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)

Last Modified: 2009-01-20

Chair(s):
 TBD

Internet Area Director(s):
 TBD

Routing Area Advisor:
 TBD

Secretary(ies):
 TBD
 
Mailing Lists:
 General Discussion: [email-masked]

Description of Working Group:

LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that
respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006
Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to
form a working group whose charter (see below) is to work on the
design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system
[2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working
group will encourage and support interoperable LISP
implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate
mapping systems. The Working Group may also create EID-prefix
assignment guidelines for RIRs, as well as security profiles for
the ALT (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR
working group).

Goals and Milestones:

Mar 2010  Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for
          Experimental.

Mar 2010  Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for
          Experimental.

Mar 2010  Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG
	  for Experimental.

June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Allocation and Routing
	  of both EIDs and RLOCs to the IESG for Experimental.

June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping
	  System to the IESG for Experimental.

July 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for
	  Experimental. 

Aug  2010  Re-charter or close.

Internet-Drafts:
	draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt
	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt
	draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
	draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt

Request For Comments:
	  None

References
----------
[0]     Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on
        Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984.

[1]     Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
        (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-09.txt.

[2]	Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology
	(LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt

[3]	Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation
	Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt.

[4]	Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and
	IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt.

[5]	Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map
	identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt.

[6]     Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
	"LISP for Multicast Environments",
	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt.  
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:15:10 -0200

David,

I wonder if any document should be published on the Management plane  
for LISP, I am not familiar with experimental documents but we can  
explore at least some management requirements.

roque

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:18:50 -0800

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:45:46 -0200

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:18 PM, David Meyer wrote:

> 	HEy Roque,
>
>> I wonder if any document should be published on the Management  
>> plane for
>> LISP, I am not familiar with experimental documents but we can  
>> explore at
> 	Sure. Are you interested in authoring/co-authoring such a
> 	document? That would be great if so.
>

Yes, I believe Eduardo and I can work on this document.

Roque

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:31:58 -0800

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:55:03 +0100

> Mar 2010  Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for

I don't think that we should restrict the mapping discussion to ALT even
if ALT is the only deployed solution today.

> 	  System to the IESG for Experimental.

I think that the discussion on Securing the LISP Mapping System should
be finished before the finalisation of any mapping proposal. This
discussion is likely to define a set of requirements to be met by
mapping systems.

Olivier
-- 
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , UCLouvain, Belgium
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:04:00 -0500

> Dave,

The mapping system spec will have a security considerations section
already.  I guess this draft will be a more in-depth exploration of
the mechanisms laid out in the mapping system spec?
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:13:59 -0800

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:53:31 -0200

hi,

I wanted to re-transmit what I believe I discussed with some of you at  
the Dublin meeting. Today SIDR has a signed object (called ROA) that  
maps prefixes to origin ASN, what I was proposing was using the same  
certificates from the RPKI generated a new kind of object (CMS  
wrapped) that maps EID to a list of possible RLOCs. I can work on some  
text soon.

Roque

On Jan 21, 2009, at 7:13 PM, David Meyer wrote:

> 	Olivier,
> 	I understand your point (LISP is modular in the mapping
> 	system). However, I was writing milestones here, so this
> 	one needs to stay.
>
> 	So do you want to add another milestone around mapping
> 	systems, and if so, send some text of what you have in
> 	mind and we can work on that.
>
> 	In general, yes. In the particular case of ALT, we will
> 	do whatever SIDR does. However, we do not want to gate
> 	progress on ALT by whatever is being done SIDR. So maybe
> 	we can have the ALT draft be self-contained (all this
> 	stuff about SIDR could go in a Security Considerations
> 	section in the ALT document), and whoever writing the
> 	Recommendations Draft can also point at that. Does that
> 	make sense?
>
> 	Dave
>

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:31:12 -0800

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:59:24 -0800

>
> I wanted to re-transmit what I believe I discussed with some of you  
> at the Dublin meeting. Today SIDR has a signed object (called ROA)  
> that maps prefixes to origin ASN, what I was proposing was using the  
> same certificates from the RPKI generated a new kind of object (CMS  
> wrapped) that maps EID to a list of possible RLOCs. I can work on  
> some text soon.
>
> Roque

Roque, this sounds promising. Thanks!

Dino