Re: [Banana] Charter

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Von: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2017 00:30
An: Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Zhangmingui (Martin) <[e-mail]>; Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [Banana] Charter

> The IETF WG formation process focuses on making sure that there is an actual community
>   of people who want to do a well-understood set of work, that those people have the skills and
>  knowledge to do the work successfully, and that they represent enough segments of the
> industry to have a wide-enough perspective to do the work in a way that will be widely applicable.
> The IETF is set up to attract competent groups of people who want to do interesting work within
> the IETF's scope, and offer them an environment and support that will allow them to do a good job.

> Generally, I agree with your above statement. If there is enough interest to do some new work and people ready to write some
> drafts and people ready to chair the meetings, creation of a WG should be the most logical thing. But, that goes with the
> assumption that the work is not overlapping with some other work that is happening some where else. That needs to be
> ensured and hence the need to agree upon the problem statement from both interested and non-interested parties.
> We need to review this overlap with QUIC, MPTCP, MobIKE and Mobile IPv6 protocols.
My impression from the last IETF meeting was that there is sufficient support for that type of work. I agree that there are ongoing
discussions in other working groups which might address some of the BANANA aspects but I do not see any WG which addresses
the whole picture and intends to come up with a solution. The (proposed) charter also states that existing protocols will be
considered. Nobody want's to reinvent the wheel.

> We can define a new signaling protocol, just to solve this distribution problem, which can authenticate/authorize the peers,
> allows path registrations, or prefix allocations, but it will be exactly the same as some existing protocols, but with a new
> signaling semantics. So, what would be achieve from this effort? It will be another signaling protocol  called "Banana",
> which does exactly the same. I wonder, what is the point of this effort?

I don't think that we have the requirement to create a new signaling protocol called BANANA. The reuse of an existing
protocol in combination with some extensions is also a very valid approach.

Nic


From: Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, September 18, 2017 at 1:50 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Zhangmingui (Martin)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter