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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Please send your comments and feedback on the list.

Enclosed are my brief comments. Sorry for the delay but I’m on vacation.

> At the same time, end users require greater privacy for their networking information and protection from outside threats, while operators demand greater operational efficiency. Identity-enabled networks aim to enable networking applications and services that provide a high degree of privacy and control of end points over their networking data, coupled with greater inherent security than provided by today’s networks.  

I would add “… control of end points over their identity address, location address, and data coupled with …”.

> To this end, the working group shall:
> 
> - 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 other new mapping combinations as needed, as well as network virtualization protocols that map virtual to physical addresses

I don’t know why there the use of the word “common” appears throughout. The charter really shouldn't intend to interoperate existing locator/ID split protocols so I would say “define and deploy a mapping system”.

And the existing locator/ID split protocols have their respective control-planes optimized for the tradeoffs they set out to design. Having something that works for all of them, to attempt interoperation, not only doesn’t make sense, but will make them run inefficiently and probably make them not useful.

> Specifically, the IDEAS WG is chartered to work on these areas for the modular framework:
> 
> - Definition of primitives for interworking with identifier-location split protocols

This isn’t useful to anyone. Having a HIP host talk to a LISP host solves nothing. It just creates complexity. And what if the LISP host has an IPv4 EID? 

This will cause a misinterpretation of the usefulness of locator/id split. I believe this should not be in the charter.

> - Identifier/locator mapping and resolution (e.g. discovery, pub/sub, multihoming, ...)
> 
> - Registration and lifecycle management of identities and their associated identifiers.
> 
> - Identity authentication and authorization (e.g. access to framework, update of information for identifiers..) 
> 
> - Definition and enforcement of basic networking policies (e.g. ability to look up an identifier-locator pair, permit forwarding traffic for particular endpoints on a per-identity basis…)
> 
> - Identity and Identifier Metadata (only fixed or slow changing, e.g. type)
> 
> - Management aspects and Data Models where appropriate.

The above items are all useful and need to be defined and more importantly deployed, so we can experiment with the solutions that meet the requirements of this working group.

> The IDEAS WG will collaborate with other Working Groups to ensure interoperability with LISP, HIP, ILA and other relevant work. Furthermore, it will try to reuse technologies already developed when appropriate.

I think the IDEAS WG should work with these working groups to make sure their control planes are extended to meet the requirements from IDEAS. But not to make them interoperate.

Dino