Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
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 4DAE51A034C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 SBeQ9R2EVlwO for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:39:30 -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 1389B1A032D for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f206so40481596wmf.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:39:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Bm4gJS1FRa9z9bhUQ5frz8eMQWP14wmLGfI4DDGKZWg=; b=b16lLyWUiA6r7cpmUVhNHV9Oh/CpnMr9m7WVhkp6vmCJpYBpsQqHyRcyLvWnY4ixqn c3FCRid48dU/sH7KAvoVrij1aOZwZzRX4hn6nr2/r2w2wJaF43j5O3PQgqB0geN0XVTb ktg5mDtGQMy9DPbD3oEKameRLaSfL5acLgCd/LhlNpYkYOX1OTWbZ3QqfZ0sv4gIwRNT HgUTzY3SdSxAhzKSTjEIusCm17GT5S723wnaXMKYrjmeT27v/hvC0g6NEY8rxDB7jCY3 kmfi/SSkVf+v9CBnxs9CwrYVOo9uF19iiPTX05z/YZFl+/tD/OPaUBzi1VjJAQngoEdi sCLg==
X-Received: by 10.28.63.200 with SMTP id m191mr6818105wma.67.1452033568670; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.188.169.250] (ppp-seco21th2-46-193-174-136.wb.wifirst.net. [46.193.174.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w73sm5594967wmw.21.2016.01.05.14.39.26 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2B03EE0.73463%vermagan@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 23:39:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9FD8A875-D110-4AF6-B54B-CF91B4A4A48E@gmail.com>
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>
To: "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" <vermagan@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ca12Y7fZ8MjH-vEe-r3ZkCwgDEs>
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:39:32 -0000

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