Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10.txt

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9721A1201E3 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tOOSkXo4LQwg for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9083D120817 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46YMY43LnGz13N7k for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1568816344; bh=58MXuDMIMxmpSTDO3b1AVRSLAPo+aTsfIaGeRxvQ9CQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D8PYGPeczl4JT1IgVdYZPANIKKMjU4L4il3A5nQkRAQjVAXqJfSYYOOHeS1E3nVaw ZPFTrus1G3Wjc4rSDabDcIgdVEUjz5e8QEb5TSGql40p0yYkcRewNW/hNqCKfDfCmR DnLDmnotlLRr29x6HfcfEsjFwNzxK1z/Fq1B8TLs=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.20.7.244] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46YMY40Gqbz13N7b for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <156862357770.28196.6343819812576579929@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <d6358cfd-9c8f-3c27-28a5-d7ae20280ec8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:19:00 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <156862357770.28196.6343819812576579929@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ZfFXhRwQhsphQiMCqAIyLRemkKs>
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 18 Sep 2019 14:19:07 -0000

I appreciate the work Sharon has put in revising this document of late.
His revisions reflect some preliminary comments I have gotten on the 
privacy issues.

In reviewing this for that purpose, I was struck by how under-specified 
this document had been.  (It is MUCH better.)
This does however lead me to a question.

Does the working group actually care about this document?  Based on the 
lack of comments about the absence of detail from WG members, it seems 
that no one actually tried to figure out how this would work from the 
document.  This suggests that the WG as a whole does not care.

Before I get more privacy feedback (if I do) I want to know
1) does the WG actually care about this?
2) Is it ready for more extensive review?

I realize we have not adopted this document.  Some of this feedback is 
to help the chairs judge what to do when the authors do ask for adoption.

Thank you,
Joel

On 9/16/2019 4:46 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
>          Title           : Network-Hexagons: H3-LISP Based Mobility Network
>          Authors         : Sharon Barkai
>                            Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz
>                            S ZionB
>                            Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
>                            Fabio Maino
>                            Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
>                            Dino Farinacci
> 	Filename        : draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10.txt
> 	Pages           : 18
> 	Date            : 2019-09-16
> 
> Abstract:
>     This document specifies combined use of H3 and LISP for mobility-networks:
>     - Enabling real-time tile by tile indexed annotation of public roads
>     - For sharing: hazards, blockages, conditions, maintenance, furniture..
>     - Between MobilityClients producing-consuming road geo-state information
>     - Using addressable grid of channels of physical world state representation
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-10