Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

On 06/19/2014 06:38 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I guess it is a feature of area WGs that the sequence of work items is
> not well-defined in advance of taking up any particular work items, nor
> are those work items correlated to WG milestones (I looked at the
> intarea milestones, dated to 2010, so I assume milestones are not used
> in this group).

Yes. This is correct. The intarea working group does not have any 
defined milestones. Most of the work we take up is one-off kind of items 
and these are not really anticipated ahead of time.


> In the case of the host ID work, this seems particularly
> unfortunate. I don’t think it’s often the case that a draft outlining
> solutions is published in advance of a draft that describes use cases
> for those solutions, but that seems to be the direction of the effort
> here.

Yes. It is unfortunate. When the draft that became RFC6967 was taken up 
in intarea, it was fairly controversial (as is all work in this space) 
and no further work was anticipated. The draft in question was 
originally going through an AD sponsored route (Joel Jaeggli - OPS). 
Joel posted in intarea to get some opinions on this draft since RFC6269 
and RFC6967 were produced here. Based on the ensuing discussion Joel 
felt that the draft was better pursued in intarea.

<snipped>

> To me what would be useful here would be a document that points out new
> problems beyond those identified in RFC 6269 that arise in
> address-sharing or tunneled architectures not already contemplated in
> that document. If there aren’t new problems, then I’m not sure why 6269
> is not considered a sufficient description of the problem space. If
> there are new problems, then between RFC 6269 and the new draft there
> would be a fairly comprehensive list of them documented, and that could
> provide a foundation for figuring out how to solve some or all of them,
> whether some of them have existing solutions, and how potential new
> solutions relate to embedding a unique host identifier at the network or
> transport layer.

I think this is a good idea.

Regards
Suresh