Re: [lisp] WG Charter

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 02 July 2015 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28EE51A00E6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0cCA1H6eKXb5 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79CBE1A00CD for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by paceq1 with SMTP id eq1so43035841pac.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FMMxy7Wn8Tr9gt8Fz4WIR3kzv0HICAUz8rl5k/LaTuA=; b=gUffolgCvYDpkIsxofC2I8VPboyvld+eK+IzuMzX0yWpWooC22B8xb6TsfVYNM8Aun WY/gvJheClJ7mKkY+YKS1GtzDN+xdbpUEISdAEbR2W91jyB/Zzb1ve/mlHNFT0AhPrEy 65T2xz6j4+2Z3xginMWgdnR/T5YhvG+w9RgCbmkpRIRN8Kolg2aniW4TkI2JM5/9DJdm 83EZywr1iIjx+ABt/LNY6FDWNQ2YHZyFNzw+GWZ1aY1sTukX3Neo8WhI3zoW6JGobbU+ dF7Er+OgoLfsl5xVo1ZLXzIC1m2lumJ19jW2GJQr21/7Ep2nXBko1rQ9fTt9p8b2vTtA DPcA==
X-Received: by 10.70.91.79 with SMTP id cc15mr68443892pdb.10.1435855755204; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uz9sm6261977pac.34.2015.07.02.09.49.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5595680E.6060905@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5BBF8956-46E3-490B-96ED-73E8834E3C94@gmail.com>
References: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com> <7C4DE69A-A7E5-41AF-A545-1AACAFBF646F@gmail.com> <5595680E.6060905@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3BFarZAZVWcGEuYWz1kMqD7ddIo>
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Charter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:49:17 -0000

> 
> Just addressing one aspect here that strikes me as being helpful to the discussion.
> 
> On 7/2/15 12:06 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> ...
>>> First, there is the question of direction for the basic LISP
>>> specification.  We can leave it as it is.  However, folks have
>>> asked us about moving it to Proposed Standard.  Based on our
>>> reading and discussion with relevant ADs, one path to do this would
>>> be to refocus the specification away from the core Internet scaling
>>> problems, and instead towards a scalable anxd flexible overlay
>>> technology.  This would not change the technical procedures, but
>>> would have significnat impact on the descriptive text.
>> 
>> This is fine but I am a bit worried we’ll spend time on “texting” and
>> not creating anything new. We are way overdue in progressing use-case
>> documents that people want to deploy, so I would like to make sure
>> one work item doesn’t gate others.
>> 
>> That is, I hope we can work in parallel. Where I do believe we WILL
>> NOT lose focus.
>> 
> 
> The re-focusing of of 6830 will probably be almost exclusive word-smithing.  The intention is not to change the protocol behaviors at all.  We will likely remove text that is covered by the introduction and similarly remove text about solving the core scaling problem.    (Yes, spending energy on wording is annoying, unfortunate, and sometimes necessary.)

This is fine but one feature of an overlay is reducing routes in the core. So it is a feature that we’ll reduce routes in the core. If that is the same as solving “the core scaling problem”, is open for discussion. I agree the term “core scaling problem” is a very generic claim and very wide encompassing.

> Since it is about the wording, not about changing any formats or procedures, I very much agree that this can and should go on in parallel with the work on addressing the technical topics we want to see covered.

Agree.

Dino

> 
> Yours,
> Joel