[lisp] Terry Manderson's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with COMMENT)
"Terry Manderson" <terry.manderson@icann.org> Wed, 03 February 2016 03:51 UTC
Return-Path: <terry.manderson@icann.org>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5141F1B3326; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:51:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160203035100.21037.83397.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:51:00 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/-n32myrERY1SONfuvdhanrqTXcU>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Terry Manderson's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:51:00 -0000
Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it is appropriate to take the both the experimental RFCs with early deployment experience and develop them into PS. Can the priority of that work be highlighted in the charter as more than just the "main"? eg it IS the number one priority, forsaking all others. ... And clearly once that is achieved a charter mod can certainly occur to readdress the priority balance. My rationale is that while there may be fluctuations in the base spec there is a product/user base in existence, a following raft (10) of draft WG documents and even more Individual submissions, that could be impacted by any necessary changes in moving from Experimental to PS. I don't object to the additional scope of items, in fact I encourage it - but in a sane balance of making the base spec robust with reward of working on shiny new things in a way that informs the Experimental ==> PS tango. So these additional scope of "may" be worked need not be listed as a priority and the WG can establish its own ordering with that in mind. I concur with others, having an explicit list of the WG (or liaison group) interactions spelled out here early would be beneficial to those target WGs and the sanity of the chairs and ADs in cross area coordination.
- [lisp] Terry Manderson's No Objection on charter-… Terry Manderson