Re: [Ideas] Prep for BOF in July - Your input Needed on a Charter Proposal

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

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Specifically, the IDEAS WG is chartered to work on these areas:
> >
> >
> >
> > Overall architecture: This work covers the control plane, management,
> policy
> > control, and security aspects.
> >
> Like other mapping systems (routing, DNS) there will probably be a
> natural two level protocol hierarchy in the system. 1) The
> authoritative servers that synchronize the full mapping table for a
> domain and possibly shard it 2) A means for hosts to cache a subset of
> mappings without consulting the master for every use. Between the
> servers a protocol is needed with goal of synchronizing the
> distributed table. For the host cache protocol the goal is to manage
> the cache and keep it up to date as much a possible. Cache management
> will break down to whether it's a pull or a push model. Pull
> techniques would be like address resolution (like ARP as a model),
> push would be re-directs, cache invalidation, etc. There are some
> significant differences in security between pull and push, pull being
> the easier one to make secure since requests can be validated using a
> nonce.
>

Agree with most of your points.
I am not sure that we really want to synchronize the full mapping table but
I agree on 2 where ou really want to have efficient cache management.

>
> Another thing that might be mentioned in charter is what intended
> scope is. Is the goal to have one public mapping table system (like
> DNS) for the Internet with hierarchy that would allow sites to create
> their own mapping tables? Or would each site create there own tables
> and if they want to share mapping information with their partners they
> can do so by a private agreement? (personally I'd favor the second
> approach).
>
>
I am in favor of second as well and think this is more realistic for the
use cases.

Padma


> Tom
>
> >
> >
> > Manageability of the architecture: The working group will cover the
> > management aspects of IDEAS architectural components and the services
> that
> > they provide.
> >
> >
> >
> > Interface to the architecture: This work will cover interface
> interactions
> > between the framework and identifier-enabled protocol.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where appropriate, the IDEAS WG will collaborate with other Working
> Groups
> > to ensure interoperability with LISP, HIP, ILA and other relevant work.
> >
> >
> >
> > WG deliverables include:
> >
> > Overall architecture
> >
> >
> >
> > WG sustaining/informational documents may include:
> >
> >
> >
> > These documents may not necessarily be published, but may be
> >
> > maintained in a draft form or on a collaborative Working Group wiki
> >
> > to support the efforts of the Working Group and help new comers:
> >
> > -Problem statement
> >
> > -Use cases
> >
> > -Requirements
> >
> > .....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Milestones
> >
> > TBD
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ideas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
> >
>