Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

[Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>]

Approved and Merged.

Padma

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:15 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sounds good, updated.
>
>
>
> Alberto
>
>
>
> *From: *Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:02 PM
> *To: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>, Luigi Iannone <
> [e-mail]>, LISP mailing list list <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on
> GitHub]
>
> I would phrase it “LISP xTRs” rather than “tunnel routers”.
>
>
>
> Dino
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2023, at 2:26 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi Padma,
>
>
>
> Fixes seem fine to me, thanks!
>
>
>
> Maybe another suggestion, how about this text for mobility?
>
> “Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move
> across different tunnel routers and/or tunnel routers that are themselves
> mobile, hence, support needs to be provided in order to achieve seamless
> connectivity.”
>
>
>
> https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/11/
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alberto
>
> *From: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:53 AM
> *To: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>,
> LISP mailing list list <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on
> GitHub]
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I fixed some nits and addressed my previous editorial comments on "Moving
> to Standards Track:" and "Yang Model:".
>
> It can be found here https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/10/files.
>
>
>
> Let me know if you have any further comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Padma
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:38 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Approved and merged.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:05 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I just sent a PullRequest in GitHub with some edits. You can find it here:
> https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/9
>
>
>
> To keep the discussion on the list, here are the main points:
>
> - I switched the Name Encoding and Yang deliverable dates. I have action
> items on both (shepherd for the first and author for the second), and I
> feel Yang might require some time to get it done, while Name Encoding is
> almost there. I don’t think flipping these two dates has major implications.
>
>
>
> - I removed this sentence from the Yang item: “These management methods
> should be considered for both the data-plane, control plane, and mapping
> system components.” I think it is probably redundant and it might confuse
> more than clarify (isn’t mapping system a subset of control plane?)
>
>
>
> - I polished the language on the milestones to be consistent across the
> different items (using the same sentence structure, etc). I also use
> “document(s)” for the document bundles and those items further in the
> future, so we are flexible in how to address them.
>
>
>
> Other than that, it’s just minor edits. Let me know if you have any
> comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alberto
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 2:01 PM
> *To: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>, LISP mailing list list <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on
> GitHub]
>
> Hi Dino, Padma,
>
>
>
> The list of milestones I proposed does not have more than 2 item per
> deadline, which is reasonable to me.
>
> However, some milestones do indeed refer to several documents like Privacy
> and Security, Multicast, and mobility.
>
> IMO there is no need to list the detailed documents and if we finish
> before the schedule this is a plus not a problem.
>
>
>
> Since Nov 2023 is in 2 weeks I agree with Padma that there is no need to
> rush.
>
>
>
> The name encoding document was indeed missing, since it is a simple
> document we can publish it by March 2024.
>
>
>
> The update list looks like:
>
>
>
> 1. November 2023: Submit a LISP Yang model document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 2. March 2024: Submit LISP Traffic Engineering document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 3. March 2024: Submit LISP Reliable Transport document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 4. March 2024: Submit LISP Name Encoding document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 5. June 2024 : Submit LISP geo-coordinates to the IESG for consideration
>
> 6. June 2024: Submit a LISP NAT Traversal document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 7. November 2024: Submit 8111bis to the IESG for consideration
>
> 8. November 2024: Submit merged LCAFbis document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 9. March 2025: Submit LISP Privacy and Security documents to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 10. March 2025: Submit 6832bis Proxy XTRs document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 11. June 2025: Submit LISP Mobile documents to the IESG for consideration
>
> 12. November 2025: Submit Multicast documents to the IESG for consideration
>
> 13. March 2026: Submit LISP Applicability document to the IESG for
> consideration
>
> 14. November 2026: Wrap-Up or recharter
>
>
>
>
>
> Better?
>
>
>
> L.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 01:46, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Dino
>
>
>
> The groupings look good!
>
>
>
> Some dates look too aggressive Nov 2023:  draft-ietf-lisp-geo,
> draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (Standards Track). We are
> already there ...
>
> As the dates proposed are target dates, i suggest we keep the date of June
> 2024 but if we can go faster it is all good. thoughts?
>
>
>
> Similar comment for mobility.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Padma
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:35 PM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > What do you think of putting some major milestones for mobility and
> security sections rather than per document?
>
> I think security is further out compared to mobility. Just because other
> groups will have to peer-review the security documents. But good suggestion
> and will incldue below the set that go together (IMO).
>
> So here is what I suggest:
>
> For June 2024: Mobility documents as a set to IESG, which include:
>
>   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility, draft-ietf-lisp-mn,
> draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs, draft-ietf-lisp-vpn
>
> And for June 2025: Security documents as a set to IESG, which include:
>
>   draft-ietf-lisp-crypto (RFC8061 to Standards Track),
> draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity
>
> And then, not related to what you asked for, to put all LCAF related stuff
> in one set:
>
> For Nov 2023:
>
>   draft-ietf-lisp-geo, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306
> (Standards Track)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dino
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>