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

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

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > 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 …”.
>

OK I will massage this paragraph and also taking into account the comment
from Bob regarding the first sentence.


>
> > 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”.


You are right. We are not trying to interoperate existing protocols but the
common is from the infrastructure perspective. Noted your comment will go
over this.

>
>
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.
>
>
See my above comment.


> > 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?
>
> ok will explain this better, the interworking is protocol and infra not
between protocols
Will need to make this clearer int he text


> 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.
>
>
Sure we are in agreement will reword for clarity

Thanks for your review and feedback

Padma

> Dino
>
>