Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

I would phrase it “LISP xTRs” rather than “tunnel routers”. 

Dino

On Oct 20, 2023, at 2:26 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]> wrote:



Hi Padma,

 

Fixes seem fine to me, thanks!

 

Maybe another suggestion, how about this text for mobility?

“Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move across different tunnel routers and/or tunnel routers that are themselves mobile, hence, support needs to be provided in order to achieve seamless connectivity.”

 

https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/11/" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/11/

 

Thanks!

Alberto

From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:53 AM
To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>, LISP mailing list list <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

Hi everyone,

 

I fixed some nits and addressed my previous editorial comments on "Moving to Standards Track:" and "Yang Model:". 

It can be found here https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/10/files" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/10/files.

 

Let me know if you have any further comments.

 

Thanks

Padma

 

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:38 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]> wrote:

Approved and merged.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:05 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I just sent a PullRequest in GitHub with some edits. You can find it here: https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/9" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/9

 

To keep the discussion on the list, here are the main points:

- I switched the Name Encoding and Yang deliverable dates. I have action items on both (shepherd for the first and author for the second), and I feel Yang might require some time to get it done, while Name Encoding is almost there. I don’t think flipping these two dates has major implications.

 

- I removed this sentence from the Yang item: “These management methods should be considered for both the data-plane, control plane, and mapping system components.” I think it is probably redundant and it might confuse more than clarify (isn’t mapping system a subset of control plane?)

 

- I polished the language on the milestones to be consistent across the different items (using the same sentence structure, etc). I also use “document(s)” for the document bundles and those items further in the future, so we are flexible in how to address them.

 

Other than that, it’s just minor edits. Let me know if you have any comment.

 

Thanks!

Alberto

 

 

From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 2:01 PM
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>, LISP mailing list list <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

Hi Dino, Padma,

 

The list of milestones I proposed does not have more than 2 item per deadline, which is reasonable to me. 

However, some milestones do indeed refer to several documents like Privacy and Security, Multicast, and mobility.

IMO there is no need to list the detailed documents and if we finish before the schedule this is a plus not a problem.

 

Since Nov 2023 is in 2 weeks I agree with Padma that there is no need to rush.

 

The name encoding document was indeed missing, since it is a simple document we can publish it by March 2024.

 

The update list looks like:

 

1. November 2023: Submit a LISP Yang model document to the IESG for consideration

2. March 2024: Submit LISP Traffic Engineering document to the IESG for consideration

3. March 2024: Submit LISP Reliable Transport document to the IESG for consideration

4. March 2024: Submit LISP Name Encoding document to the IESG for consideration

5. June 2024 : Submit LISP geo-coordinates to the IESG for consideration

6. June 2024: Submit a LISP NAT Traversal document to the IESG for consideration

7. November 2024: Submit 8111bis to the IESG for consideration

8. November 2024: Submit merged LCAFbis document to the IESG for consideration

9. March 2025: Submit LISP Privacy and Security documents to the IESG for consideration

10. March 2025: Submit 6832bis Proxy XTRs document to the IESG for consideration

11. June 2025: Submit LISP Mobile documents to the IESG for consideration

12. November 2025: Submit Multicast documents to the IESG for consideration

13. March 2026: Submit LISP Applicability document to the IESG for consideration

14. November 2026: Wrap-Up or recharter 

 

 

Better?

 

L.

 

 

On Oct 17, 2023, at 01:46, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Hi Dino 

 

The groupings look good!

 

Some dates look too aggressive Nov 2023:  draft-ietf-lisp-geo, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (Standards Track). We are already there ...

As the dates proposed are target dates, i suggest we keep the date of June 2024 but if we can go faster it is all good. thoughts?

 

Similar comment for mobility. 

 

Thanks

Padma

 

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:35 PM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What do you think of putting some major milestones for mobility and security sections rather than per document?

I think security is further out compared to mobility. Just because other groups will have to peer-review the security documents. But good suggestion and will incldue below the set that go together (IMO).

So here is what I suggest:

For June 2024: Mobility documents as a set to IESG, which include:

  draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility, draft-ietf-lisp-mn, draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs, draft-ietf-lisp-vpn

And for June 2025: Security documents as a set to IESG, which include:

  draft-ietf-lisp-crypto (RFC8061 to Standards Track), draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity

And then, not related to what you asked for, to put all LCAF related stuff in one set:

For Nov 2023:

  draft-ietf-lisp-geo, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding, RFC 8060 and 9306 (Standards Track)

What do you think?

Dino