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

Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com> Mon, 07 August 2017 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <padma@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461AB1200F3 for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qy4eeCBHrS-U for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0408B126E64 for <ideas@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DSX58397; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:51:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 22:51:53 +0100
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.153]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:51:44 -0700
From: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com>
To: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
Thread-Index: AQHTDzzgMTdLfPDqsEeAy5/b+sfLkaJ5q4cAgAAilQCAABJ7gP//jgiw
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:51:43 +0000
Message-ID: <EC7A99B9A59C1B4695037EEB5036666B026FED52@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAG-CQxpxDXxLXdu0a2GdBRfTFLM_C+jqCz58HoNim52C7Yzr8g@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35qzym9quRRdv-TFDJW-hRXe+iGi8Db5T16JD8mExbr4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-CQxoWTrhhTD7gOyceDn+WEKqDfa11rqv2810Hdg028z4Ygg@mail.gmail.com> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0E0ED16F@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0E0ED16F@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.48.46]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EC7A99B9A59C1B4695037EEB5036666B026FED52SJCEML702CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.5988E0FB.005A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.153, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 018e6e1cce410ee72e0571540e9b9256
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/yrzsaMMBZTdDdoLB3JstHz6SI3M>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:52:07 -0000

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:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault; Tom Herbert
Cc: ideas@ietf.org
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:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Padma Pillay-Esnault
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: ideas@ietf.org
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