[lisp] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 7A4F11A1EF5; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:12:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160204091208.9791.84600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:12:08 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3ckm3sTTZB7l0KTOa--TrWTtdRY>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Benoit Claise'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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:12:08 -0000

Benoit Claise 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:


- One advantage of doing a late review is that much has been said. I
basically agree with all comments made the IESG so far. In particular
with Jari: the charter is basically an initial promise. As such it should
contain the right expectations (ex: standards track), and ideally the
milestones (however, we don't have a clear consensus with the IESG on the
milestones, so I won't insist).

- "Besides this main focus, the LISP WG may work on the following
"May" is weird, when you have already adopted a WG. Ex:

- Finally,

  - Management models: Support for managing the LISP protocol and
deployments that include data models, as well as allowing for
programmable management interfaces. These management methods
should be considered for both the data-plane, control plane,
and mapping system components.

We speak about the management of the experimental RFCs or the new
standards track document? Please clarify