Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 24 March 2009 02:25 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C230A3A6A92 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Gc9MBj3DcTE for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A6B3A6836 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 3D4756BE578; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20090324022557.3D4756BE578@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:25:56 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:25:08 -0000
> From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> > Darrel discussed an idea with the authors of expanding EID as end-site > identifier. That's not really correct, though, because an _individual_ LISP EID names an individual host (well, perhaps even an interface, as Fred Templin pointed out). So they don't identify "sites". If the term 'LISP EID' is not acceptable, I suggest you pick a term which i) recognizes that an individual example names an individual 'something' (machine or interface), and ii) properly captures the ambiguity, and potentially changing semantics, of the LISP EID. E.g. something like 'LISP device name'. (I picked 'device' to be deliberately amniguous as to whether an LEID names a host or an interface, to avoid semi-endless debates about what it does name. :-) Comments on the draft charter: > In general, these proposals are based on the "Locator/Identifier > separation". I think 'location and identity separation' is a better term. (I tend to use 'separation of location and identity', actually, preferring the flow of that version.) "Locator", as originally defined in RFC-1992, is a particular kind of name, not a generic concept. (If anyone looks at RFC-1992, the term 'node' in that document means 'node in an RFC-1992 map', not 'node' in the more generic sense.) > the Internet architecture combines two functions, Routing Locators, > (where you are attached to the network) and Endpoint Identifiers (who > you are) in one number space: The IP address. "Locators" and "Endpoint Identifiers" are particular _kinds_ of name; to describe "functions", terms like 'location, for the purposes of routing' and 'identity, for use in end-end interactions' would be more apropos. Also, did you want to mention how the internet architecture also confuses whether what is being named by an IP address is an interface, or the host itself ('stack', if one wishes)? Making this point is not necessary, if you think it will distract. > end-site Identifiers (EIDs) Same comment as above about "site". > LISP EIDs are composed of three parts: a portion that identifies an > organization, a portion that identifies a subnet within an > organization, and a portion that identifies an interface on that subnet Ah, one 'organization' might have multiple ETRs, and multiple LEID blocks (and RLOC sets associated with each one), so I think 'site' is better than 'organization'. Also, not all sites will adopt that two-layer division internally. I think this would better put as: LISP EIDs are composed of two parts: a 'global' portion that uniquely identifies a particular site, and a 'local' portion which identifies a device within that site. The 'local' portion may be further subdivided internal to a site, e.g. to identify a particular physical network within that site, and a device on that network, but that division may not be visible outside the site. Again, 'device' is deliberately ambiguous. > Generally, the same IP address cannot be used as both an EID and an > RLOC, especially if the entities named by the EID and RLOC are > different. I'm not sure about this; if routes are tagged as to whether they are routes to 'legacy' addresses , LEIDs or RLOCs, (which I claim they will almost certainly have to be, to enable routing efficiencies by restricting the scopes over which they are carried), one could indeed have a particular 32-bit value used as both an EID and an RLOC (and in different places). Do we need to cover this in the charter, or can we just drop this sentence? > The LISP WG is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol > (draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt), the LISP+ALT mapping system > (draft-fuller-lisp-alt-05.txt), LISP Interworking > (draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt), LISP Map Server > (draft-fuller-lisp-ms-00.txt), and LISP multicast > (draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt) This wording might be taken to read as saying only these documents can be produced. I wonder if that will be too limiting (e.g. if we want to split draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt into, say a 'LISP Overview' document and a 'LISP protocol specification' document)? Is there some way to clarify that? Also, I wonder what will happen if, in the course of deploying testbeds, we decide we need something else (like the Map Server thing, which is a _very_ recent addition). Would we have to modify the charter if we decide we need something else to get the test-bed operational? The rest looks fine. Noel
- [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Michael Menth
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Scott Brim
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter Templin, Fred L
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter -… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter -… Sam Hartman