Re: [lisp] Standard Track

Hello,

I am supporting the move to ST and focus to overlay technology in this case.

Damien Saucez 

On 25 Aug 2015, at 11:27, Lori Jakab <lori@lispmob.org> wrote:

> On 8/25/15 12:07 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people are not interested in moving LISP to ST?
> 
> I very much support moving LISP to ST, sorry for the delay in replying.
> 
> Regards,
> -Lori
> 
>> 
>> L.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for the WG 
>>> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on the core
>>> protocol technology. 
>>> 
>>> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by experimental work 
>>> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so far. 
>>> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits 
>>> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed.
>>> 
>>> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects,
>>> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work
>>> on standard track. 
>>> 
>>> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to re-work 
>>> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to scalability,
>>> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so far.
>>> 
>>> Would be the WG in favour of such direction?
>>> 
>>> Joel & Luigi
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp