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

[Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>]

Hi All

I have made another pass to integrate Alvaro's editorial changes.
Please review and approve.

https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter/pull/12/files

Thanks
Padma

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 1:06 AM Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Approved and Merged.
>
> Padma
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:15 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, updated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alberto
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:02 PM
>> *To: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>, Luigi Iannone <
>> [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]
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>