Re: [lisp] WG Charter

> One of the things Luigi and I as chairs would like to do in Prague is spend some time discussing among the WG participants what we want to work on going forward.  To enable this, we would like to start discussion on the list.  We will also follow the face to face with a summary to the list and further discussion.

Great idea and a long time coming. Glad to hear.

> There are two aspects that are related but distinct, so to start this off I want to identify them and ask folks to comment on them separately.

I’ll add more to Fabio’s list when I respond in another email to his email.

> First, there is the question of direction for the basic LISP specification.  We can leave it as it is.  However, folks have asked us about moving it to Proposed Standard.  Based on our reading and discussion with relevant ADs, one path to do this would be to refocus the specification away from the core Internet scaling problems, and instead towards a scalable anxd flexible overlay technology.  This would not change the technical procedures, but would have significnat impact on the descriptive text.

This is fine but I am a bit worried we’ll spend time on “texting” and not creating anything new. We are way overdue in progressing use-case documents that people want to deploy, so I would like to make sure one work item doesn’t gate others. 

That is, I hope we can work in parallel. Where I do believe we WILL NOT lose focus.

> Does the WG think this is a good idea?  If so, do folks want to do it?

A very good idea IMO. But let’s not put creeping featurism into the exist RFC 6830, if that was your reference to “refocus the specification”. I assume you mean RFC 6830?

> Second, there are a large number of pieces that people have proposed (many with drafts).  There are probably too many to include everything in the charter.  Which things do people think are important for the WG.  In particular, explanations of why particular items are important, and comments pro or con from folks who are not the document authors are particularly useful to the community.  (I doubt that there will be significant negative comment since I have not seen proposals that are bad ideas.  However, the WG has to prioritize and choose.)

My experience with LISP (2 implementations and years of operation and deployment experience) that we can come down to a few protocol solutions that handle many use-cases. So the general IP address mobility use-case solves many other high-level use-cases.

That is VM-mobility and LISP Mobile-Node is the same solution it just a question if the EID and RLOC live in the same node (the former it does not but the latter it does).

I’ll respond to Fabio’s email with more details.

Dino

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp