Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.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 1AF101A1A6D for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:39:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 zwZ_PCooyYxi for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E85A1A1A6A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:39:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3485; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452116389; x=1453325989; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PgEtO8QSdrVOwaFy0X8OJ7VDYwzlm5JVYO8UA2M/4FY=; b=DvceyEGhCE2bgDbiBgY30277OyPWJGntY+uKTRWldlHeCzbbc6l2aFhe e7lo1cM6okWAMdjmNx72c15lGtVNvTXFD1yOHUnkLvs8CzVbPNbXqXahC UYFUwXZCjAYWJPTwb2yQuXPgDEbJSQfB36dV4Ow6MezLupoQttPnLnT+m Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AWAgBViI1W/49dJa1UCoM6Um2IWbNaA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZBgKhW0CgSY4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ1AQEEAQEBIA8BBTQCChELEgYCAgUDEws?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgkDAgECARUiDhMGAgEBF4gUDrEdkGMBAQEBBgEBAQEBGgSBAYVVhH+ELINHg?= =?us-ascii?q?UkFjjCEWoQAjVWBXIRDgweFVIVeiGkgAQFChCsdNIVhAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,530,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="223403161"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2016 21:39:48 +0000
Received: from [10.24.42.44] ([10.24.42.44]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u06LdlIY025705 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:39:48 GMT
To: lisp@ietf.org
References: <08A51E69-008C-4DBE-9707-996468F46FC3@gigix.net> <709F769A-B270-4DB9-AF61-FF9FCFA0B790@gigix.net>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <568D89A4.1020507@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:39:48 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <709F769A-B270-4DB9-AF61-FF9FCFA0B790@gigix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/5TTIttL85TZB-rQDqHL_3wlp3DI>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Update Proposed 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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:39:51 -0000

Looks good Luigi.

Thanks,
Fabio


On 1/6/16 6:42 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Hereafter a new version of the charter with the comments received so far.
>
> Please send more feedback. Would be good if we can send the charter to our AD by next week.
>
> ciao
>
> L.
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>
> The LISP WG has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP supports a routing architecture which decouples the routing locators and identifiers, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent identifiers in the identifier space. LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to routers that do not directly participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable protocol. The scope of the LISP techology is recognized to range from unicast and multicast overlays at Layer 2 as well as at Layer 3, including NAT traversal, VPNs,  and supporting mobility as a general feature, independently of wheter it is a mobile user or a migrating VM, hence being applicable in both Data Centers and public Internet environments.
>
>
> The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol with the main objective to develop a standard solution based on the completed Experimental RFCs and the experience gained from early deployments.
>
> This work will include reviewing the existing set of Experimental RFCs and doing the necessary enhancements to support a base set of standards track RFCs. The group will review the current set of Working Group documents to identify potential standards-track documents and do the necessary enhancements to support standards-track. It is recognized that some of the work will continue on the experimental track, though the group is encouraged to move the documents to standards track in support of network use, whereas the work previously was scoped to experimental documents.
>
> Beside this main focus, the LISP WG work on the following items:
>
> ·       Multi-protocol support: Specifying the required extensions to support multi-protocol encapsulation (e.g.,   L2 or NSH – Network Service Headers). Rather than developing new encapsulations the work will aim at using existing well-established encapsulations or emerging from other Working Grops such as  NVO3 and SFC.
>
> ·       Alternative Mapping System Design. By extenting LISP with  new protocols support it is also necessary to develop the required mapping function and control plane extensions to operate LISP map-assisted  networks (which might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models, independednt mapping systems interconnection, security extensions, or alternative transports of the LISP control protocol).
>
> ·       Mobility
>
> ·       Multicast: Support for overlay multicast by means of replication as well as interfacing with existing underlay multicast support.
>
> ·       Data-Plane Encryption
>
> ·       NAT-Traversal
>
> ·       Models for managing the LISP protocol and deployments that include data models, as well as allowing for programmable management interfaces. These managament methods should be considered for both the data-plane, control-plane, and mapping system components.
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp