[lisp] Jari Arkko's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: (with COMMENT)

"Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 06 April 2016 16:15 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 CA66012D1C1; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
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: 6.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160406161552.25042.2486.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:15:52 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JNKCjAm9p9bO1m64cKmyALe8Rfc>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Jari Arkko's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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 Apr 2016 16:15:52 -0000

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: 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:


I had asked a clarification on which parts of the work of the WG will be
going standards track and which parts experimental. The answer and
suggested edits to the charter have made it clearer. Thank you.

For what it is worth, I believe the working group should not put the
entire list of work items (9 previous RFCs to be re-worked plus 7 new
ones) targeting standards track. The new charter text has language that
the situation will be evaluated for the new charter items, but at least
my read of it gives a default answer of "standards track".  In my view
there are work items that would benefit from being targeted for an
experimental round before made standards, and I thought the charter
should have said that. 

There was pushback for my suggestion to do that, however. I do not plan
to stand in the way of the working group making this charter update, but
I wanted to be on record that the I didn't think this was a good idea.