[lisp] WG Charter

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 01 July 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0901A8A04 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PjYVLZikNANh for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 941431A89C7 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFA024B501 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (wsip-72-214-234-138.om.om.cox.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 314042405CD for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:18:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/dYDsKrPSHruYrwSHecFCD95LkSA>
Subject: [lisp] WG 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, 01 Jul 2015 14:18:18 -0000

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)