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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 04 February 2016 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0921B3781; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7v6DXH9uNRD; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD69F1B3784; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A84AC040D; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:27:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1454545634; bh=4YWoHYx3rdICOQdPQZE+K0WYvZjkjMXEmRvxHtpknhM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ADLM98SvWZ9pDth1yroeCP00EOucbM/YQOqagckAhzxowBh7NaeX+SAvzYCOzz1wU KINrsKFptGZH0N1ZG/TBL7jTxJJViqBz2vlq7zKE4Y/mg6ztjAgNX01cGH3ClBD3/f +vYA05UNrV/gqXylhd4JraZfRIbf5SDt5hnlkksE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 233AC1C0455; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:27:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Jari Arkko <>, The IESG <>
References: <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:26:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Jari Arkko's Block on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with BLOCK)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:27:16 -0000

I am not sure what you are asking for Jari.

There have beeen some comments that we should make clearer that the top 
priority (although not preventing the WG from working on other topics) 
is moving the needed core documents from Experimental to PS.  That 
change is one we can and should make.

Beyond that, I don't think we want to mandate in the charter whether the 
other work will turn out to be experimental or standards track.  Can you 
explain why we need to decide that status issue now?


On 2/3/16 6:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 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).
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list