Re: [lisp] lisp Digest, Vol 172, Issue 10

["Balaji Pitta Venkatachalapathy (bvenkata)" <[e-mail]>]

Can we also please add “LISP Map Server Reliable transport” to TODO list (we have already been working on)

Thanks
Balaji

From: lisp <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:46 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: lisp Digest, Vol 172, Issue 10
Send lisp mailing list submissions to
        [e-mail]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [e-mail]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [e-mail]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lisp digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items
      currently in the charter but not finished
      (Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal))
   2. Re: Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST: these are
      a bunch of RFC that may be considered
      (Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal))


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:45:45 +0000
From: "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <[e-mail]>
To: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail] list"
        <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work
        items currently in the charter but not finished
Message-ID:
        <[e-mail]>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one

Agree. This is very high on the TODO list.

Alberto

From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM
To: [e-mail] list <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently in the charter but not finished
Hi LISP WG,




As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: Promised work item: work items currently in the charter but not finished

There are a bunch of unfinished WG drafts promised in the charter, namely:

LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything should we enlarge the scope?
LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one
LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document

The above documents look like we should make an effort and finish them.

There are also a bunch of WG documents that for which we should decide what to do (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/documents/)

Does the WG consider we need to move all of them forward (and in this case we need people to commit in finishing them) or should some of them be dropped?

Please send us back your thoughts.


Padma and Luigi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/attachments/20230317/c1e9a0ed/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:45:52 +0000
From: "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <[e-mail]>
To: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail] list"
        <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST:
        these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered
Message-ID:
        <[e-mail]>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

> RFC 8060: LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [This is largely used and may be merged with 9306]

Merging the two makes good sense to me.

Alberto

From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:47 AM
To: [e-mail] list <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rechartering Thread 2: From Experimental to ST: these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered
Hi LISP WG,

As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: From Experimental to ST: these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered to move ST

There are a few experimental RFCs which is worth to be considered to be moved to standard track (if we have documented deployment experience), namely:

RFC 6832: Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites
RFC 8060: LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [This is largely used and may be merged with 9306]
RFC 8111: Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT) [The only scalable Mapping System so far?..]

Multicast can be another one work item.
RFC 6831: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments
RFC 8378: Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast

Please send us back your thoughts.


Padma and Luigi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/attachments/20230317/f9600157/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


------------------------------

End of lisp Digest, Vol 172, Issue 10
*************************************