Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 06 January 2016 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3331B2BFC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:21:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 B83rFjrJiSNq for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46B31B2BF9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f206so77643241wmf.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 06:21:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EO+qFIaDOJA0B2si0Yqu5+8hTE8Ny4/067DTIiffty0=; b=0lUOSbffcucPDCNCDj0K9ZN27iDWj2SITzvDaRA6rZ+9ZHxH3ydqMK6raDMSukIFSy wyS5WNXc683ksMUMUYV2wyLHNB0Kt55m6mZkF/HAD57IwCFE7nuyuqFYizIOM9YLmQVu 1ZFb6oE1IvAmqQW9z0gAjLWBJpVEqgpBrYYi7m9LLP82Z9YmwfEJ9m+OjCS6x0yubCf6 9xxJKy3Jo38RHVa38IL0CgBYhJSYyabq7CjrNcriyd5M+P1GwMkBmOtM4QBeZwGZV6w6 JToNstEx7CT7Hr/peQjfE4XllpjKf/oVZWswuRIarlj8+YSYwXEnz81wifIih0wcymGp N/Cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=EO+qFIaDOJA0B2si0Yqu5+8hTE8Ny4/067DTIiffty0=; b=daWe1wEr/4yrQRpAc9P4eI8+4Dj5kXKnjPKczXJBQnY8kldaCc4FY4KtyptO3JC1JP 9uHmnRNZCaxVWwjs5GTa7pZdlDFyXdvFJdHKYpr5oXV7bM4zBEszM5IDG42auLn0sB3R NJNEtD7wBP+QchRrqQ4IjRpuS/0khF4GnOyFWdnUpWCKNeiAXgl12H7howRvyYmAJWSb e8xwmKX6w5WVTRUNgvcCZT6dyQQYylP5y5gfWYySITVlfw231yjf1yQces0qYNG8t4TM rmVOFTWaWkbpWZBrvUdHINldLnvJWpDnPARlg+BYMNx0AcK1kQhIl5/tsrnAe0RbnHm8 DjOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnW6y3Q0AUhKK0y2EMsz5TSuxfpStIFDt1Lu0YiZ0ihB7itu1/6e1b+zD8f2fKWMf5vPF2LSCwgbj0o8Va1XGlZSrkAPg==
X-Received: by 10.194.86.166 with SMTP id q6mr85091192wjz.69.1452090084263; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 06:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.9.1.109] (napsach022.hosting-cea.net. [192.54.209.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g187sm8957547wmf.8.2016.01.06.06.21.22 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Jan 2016 06:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <9FD8A875-D110-4AF6-B54B-CF91B4A4A48E@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:21:30 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <05CD26A6-1896-4847-A987-5130F92770E3@gigix.net>
References: <08A51E69-008C-4DBE-9707-996468F46FC3@gigix.net> <8EB52655-5FF5-44DE-A286-D79E4BB423B2@gmail.com> <AF133C2D-5627-408F-8B42-BA4E7E3FA5E3@gmail.com> <568AFBC2.2020103@joelhalpern.com> <D2B03EE0.73463%vermagan@cisco.com> <9FD8A875-D110-4AF6-B54B-CF91B4A4A48E@gmail.com>
To: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/cNjttKQxDMkJv3fGo18Cd0s3haA>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 06 Jan 2016 14:21:28 -0000

HI All,

We can certainly re-order the bullets following Dino’s suggestion. 
I would not put any text about priority and/or importance, just because any person working on a specific bullet will obviously think that his/her work is the most important. ;-)

Does it sound OK for the WG?

Ciao

L.




> On 05 Jan 2016, at 23:39, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear chairs,
> 
> I support the new chartes with the changes proposed by Fabio and Vina.
> 
> As Joel and Vina, I would prefer not to order the different points as such
> prioritisation would be highly subjective.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Damien Saucez 
> 
> On 05 Jan 2016, at 02:49, Vina Ermagan (vermagan) <vermagan@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Chairs,
>> 
>> Thanks for the text. One minor comment: in addition to Fabio's suggestion,
>> perhaps we can also include a wording that explicitly includes control
>> plane protocol extensions needed to accommodate the new mapping functions.
>> I have captures both additions in << >> below.
>> 
>> - Alternative Mapping System Design. By extending LISP with  new protocols
>> support it is also necessary to develop the required mapping function <<
>> and control plane >> extensions to operate LISP map-assisted  networks
>> (which might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models
>> and related security extensions, << or alternative transports of the LISP
>> control protocol >>).
>> 
>> Regarding the ordering of the list, I believe we should stay away from
>> officially prioritizing the list in the charter. Therefore I think we
>> should avoid numbering the list. I have no objection to re-arranging the
>> list in any order as long as it does not imply prioritization.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Vina
>> 
>> On 1/4/16 3:09 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> And this is why I tend to prefer an un-ordered list.  But if the WG
>>> wants to try to agree on a prioritized list, go for it.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 1/4/16 5:42 PM, Sharon wrote:
>>>> I agree with Dino, will pull up (1) though, it allows carriers to
>>>> anchor access services in POPs where the MAO operations are based.
>>>> Cloud RAN, NFV, VPN .. type services.
>>>> 
>>>> --szb
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> If the text looks good for you, please state so in the mailing list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am fine with the text. But I have one comment about sequencing the
>>>>> list below. Can we sequence the list in order of generality or
>>>>> importance?
>>>>> 
>>>>> See inline comment below.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Beside this main focus, the LISP WG work on the following items:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       NAT-Traversal
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Mobility
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Data-Plane Encryption
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Multicast: Support for overlay multicast by means of
>>>>>>      replication as well as interfacing with existing
>>>>>>      underlay multicast support.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Models for managing the LISP protocol and deployments
>>>>>>      that include data models, as well as allowing for
>>>>>>      programmable management interfaces. These managament
>>>>>>      methods should be considered for both the data-plane,
>>>>>>      control-plane, and mapping system components
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Multi-protocol support: Specifying the required
>>>>>>      extensions to support multi-protocol encapsulation
>>>>>>      (e.g.,   L2 or NSH ­ Network Service Headers). Rather
>>>>>>      than developing new encapsulations the work will aim
>>>>>>      at using existing well-established encapsulations or
>>>>>>      emerging from other Working Grops such as  NVO3 and SFC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -       Alternative Mapping System Design. By extenting LISP
>>>>>>      with  new protocols support it is also necessary to
>>>>>>      develop the required mapping function extensions to
>>>>>>      operate LISP map-assisted  networks (which might
>>>>>>      include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push
>>>>>>      models and related security extension).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will number the above as 1 - 7 and feel they should be ordered in
>>>>> sequence:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6, 7, 2, 4, 3, 1, 5
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dino
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp