Subject: [lisp] Please respond: Questions from the IESG on whether a WG forming BOF is necessary

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:21:33 -0800

Folks,

	I'm being asked (by the IESG) whether people believe
	that we can go directly to our first 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 following the draft agenda
	 (below), or should we have another BOF?"

	Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can
	close on these administrative issues.

	Thanks,

	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.

Mar 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-11.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-02.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: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:41:21 -0500

Given the target (a WG to produce experimental specificaitons) I can see 
no benefit in an additional BoF.

Joel

David Meyer wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:58:28 -0800

> no benefit in an additional BoF.

	Thanks for the input Joel.

	Dave

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:22:22 -0800

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:57:48PM -0200, [email-masked] wrote:
> +1
> Roque

	Thnx Roque.

	Dave

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:25:40 -0500

+1.  Of course that means we need to get the charter really clear.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:12:02 +0100

> +1.  Of course that means we need to get the charter really clear.

I agree with the two sentences.

Olivier

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:57:48 -0200 (UYST)

Roque

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:38:23 +0100

> Given the target (a WG to produce experimental specificaitons) I can
> see no benefit in an additional BoF.
>
I fully agree on this.

Luigi

>>     o We have 2 or more implementations     o We have been discussing
>> a draft charter (see update below)
>>