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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

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:
>
> (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.
>

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.

> (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.
>

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