Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

From: Dipankar Raychaudhuri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:11:51 -0400

I reviewed the charter document and feel that it is a good start.  My main
comments are:

(1) I agree with the concept of an identity-identifier split, which is
necessary for an important set of applications requiring dynamic change of
identifier. Realizing this will require something similar to a trusted
“name certification service”  [cf. “MobilityFirst: A Robust and Trustworthy
Mobility-Centric Architecture for the Future Internet, ACM MC2R, July 2012]
in addition to a dynamic name-to-locator mapping/resolution service [cf.
”DMap: A Shared Hosting Scheme for Dynamic Identifier to Locator Mappings
in the Global Internet”, ICDCS 2012]

(2) A key requirement for the mapping service is the ability to support
multiple types of resolution including identifier to identifier (i.e.
recursive), identifier to group of identifiers, identifier to single
locator, identifier to a list of locators, etc.  We have found the
recursive identifier resolution capability to be very useful for scaling
and new service creation.

(3) The final output of the WG at the end of the doc should be filled in a
bit further in terms of specific APIs and query/response/update protocol
definitions to be included in the spec.

(4) While I realize that the current charter’s scope is intentionally
limited to defining general-purpose control plane support, the spec could
be of greater value by defining or linking one or more specific
identifier-based routing (data plane) protocols compatible with the IDEAS
infrastructure.

Ray

(D. Raychaudhuri)

WINLAB, Rutgers University

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:44 -0400

Ray,

On 08/16/2017 01:11 PM, Dipankar Raychaudhuri wrote:
>
> I reviewed the charter document and feel that it is a good start.  My 
> main comments are:
>
> necessary for an important set of applications requiring dynamic 
> change of identifier. Realizing this will require something similar to 
> a trusted “name certification service”  [cf. “MobilityFirst: A Robust 
> and Trustworthy Mobility-Centric Architecture for the Future Internet, 
> ACM MC2R, July 2012] in addition to a dynamic name-to-locator 
> mapping/resolution service [cf. ”DMap: A Shared Hosting Scheme for 
> Dynamic Identifier to Locator Mappings in the Global Internet”, ICDCS 
> 2012]
>
> (2) A key requirement for the mapping service is the ability to 
> support multiple types of resolution including identifier to 
> identifier (i.e. recursive), identifier to group of identifiers, 
> identifier to single locator, identifier to a list of locators, etc.  
> We have found the recursive identifier resolution capability to be 
> very useful for scaling and new service creation.
>
> (3) The final output of the WG at the end of the doc should be filled 
> in a bit further in terms of specific APIs and query/response/update 
> protocol definitions to be included in the spec.
>

You really don't want a starting charter this specific.  You can have 
wording about working on an API, but APIs have always been a sore item 
in the IETF.  Also this is why I2NSF talks about Interfaces and 
capablities, not APIs.  Leave the specitivity for the workgroup, not try 
and get the post-BOF to complete the work to start the workgroup.

> limited to defining general-purpose control plane support, the spec 
> could be of greater value by defining or linking one or more specific 
> identifier-based routing (data plane) protocols compatible with the 
> IDEAS infrastructure.
>

This comes out in the workgroup, and if necessary then you do a charter 
revision.  I need to talk to you separately about TAPS...

> Ray

Bob

---

From: "Liubingyang (Bryan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:30:10 +0000

Ray,

Could you please name a few such protocols you mentioned in (4) ?

Thanks
Bingyang

From: Ideas [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dipankar Raychaudhuri
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:12 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

I reviewed the charter document and feel that it is a good start.  My main comments are:
(1) I agree with the concept of an identity-identifier split, which is necessary for an important set of applications requiring dynamic change of identifier. Realizing this will require something similar to a trusted “name certification service”  [cf. “MobilityFirst: A Robust and Trustworthy Mobility-Centric Architecture for the Future Internet, ACM MC2R, July 2012] in addition to a dynamic name-to-locator mapping/resolution service [cf. ”DMap: A Shared Hosting Scheme for Dynamic Identifier to Locator Mappings in the Global Internet”, ICDCS 2012]
(2) A key requirement for the mapping service is the ability to support multiple types of resolution including identifier to identifier (i.e. recursive), identifier to group of identifiers, identifier to single locator, identifier to a list of locators, etc.  We have found the recursive identifier resolution capability to be very useful for scaling and new service creation.
(3) The final output of the WG at the end of the doc should be filled in a bit further in terms of specific APIs and query/response/update protocol definitions to be included in the spec.
(4) While I realize that the current charter’s scope is intentionally limited to defining general-purpose control plane support, the spec could be of greater value by defining or linking one or more specific identifier-based routing (data plane) protocols compatible with the IDEAS infrastructure.

Ray

(D. Raychaudhuri)

---

From: Dipankar Raychaudhuri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:51:29 -0400

Examples of identifier-based routing protocols are: HIP, LISP,
MobilityFirst, NDN.

*From:* Liubingyang (Bryan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:30 PM
*To:* Dipankar Raychaudhuri; [email-masked]
*Subject:* RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

Ray,

Thanks

Bingyang

*From:* Ideas [mailto:[email-masked] <[email-masked]>] *On
Behalf Of *Dipankar Raychaudhuri
*Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:12 AM
*To:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

Ray

(D. Raychaudhuri)