Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Vina, Fabio,

I do not see any objection in adding the suggested text.

Ciao

L.


> On 05 Jan 2016, at 02:49, Vina Ermagan (vermagan) <[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp