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

[Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <[e-mail]>]

Sure

However, been wondering if it is best not to be so specific in the charter.
Thoughts?

Padma

From: Alexander Clemm
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:42 AM
To: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault; Tom Herbert
Cc: [e-mail]; Padma Pillay-Esnault
Subject: RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

OK.

If we want to have a more specific list of supported mappings, it may be useful to mention some of those other mappings as well – by means of example, mappings between identifiers.

Thanks
--- Alex

From: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>; Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

Alex

My understanding is that Tom did NOT ask for removing of identity concept.
He asked to make the section on common infrastructure clearer with this sentence.

I agree with you that the mappings should not be restricted to 1->n

Thanks
Padma

From: Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault; Tom Herbert
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

I am not sure we should restrict ourselves to mapping between identifiers and locators.

I would at a minimum want to include mappings between identifiers, and between identifiers and (for lack of a better term) groupings of identifiers.

If we take out the identity concept, we should also rename the WG.

--- Alex

From: Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Padma Pillay-Esnault
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

Hi Tom


>
> To this end, the working group shall:
>
> - define a framework for the development of an identifier/locator mapping
> system that provides a common solution for all identifier/locator mapping
> protocols and network virtualization.
>
Padma,

I think this statement could be stronger and express that the common
mapping system and protocols are expected output from WG. How about
something like: "Define and develop a common mapping system, control
plane, and related protocol that provide a common solution for
identifier/locator protocols that map identifiers to locators, as well
as network virtualization protocols that map virtual to physical
addresses"

Fine with me.

Let's poll the list for consensus on this.

Thanks
Padma

Tom