[lisp] Jari Arkko's Block on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with BLOCK)

"Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 03 February 2016 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 E9EF81B36F4; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:50:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160203235002.11194.20571.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:50:02 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/G3dDULGJsJj9tJlIM3OWJLvE2XA>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Jari Arkko's Block on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with BLOCK)
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:50:03 -0000

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: Block

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:


Thank you for formulating a proposal for LISP work to continue to next
step(s). The results will be interesting, and there's a group of people
interested in doing the work.

The basics of the proposed charter seem good; learn from the experience
and take what worked well into PS, ditch the not-so-well-worked parts,
and continue some part of the work as experimental until we have more
experience of it.

I will support a new charter for the working group, but first I have a
question that I want discuss. I do think though that we should talk about
the scoping of the charter. It is quite imprecise with respect to what
will be on standards track and what is not. Could that or the process
leading to that decision be clarified? Or am I missing something on this
late hour when I read the charter? For instance, consider taking to PS
things that we have published as RFCs before (possibly modified).