Re: [lisp] Jari Arkko's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: (with COMMENT)

If we should start a list of what items should be standards track, I think this is a decent start and is a practical base:

RFC 6830 (main spec)
RFC 6831 (multicast spec) but decide if draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free should go instead or in addition
RFC 6832 (Interworking)
RFC 6833 (Map-Server (aka the mapping system control-plane))
draft-ietf-lisp-ddt

And note these specs have been in use for at least 5 years.

Dino

On Apr 6, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I had asked a clarification on which parts of the work of the WG will be
> going standards track and which parts experimental. The answer and
> suggested edits to the charter have made it clearer. Thank you.
> 
> For what it is worth, I believe the working group should not put the
> entire list of work items (9 previous RFCs to be re-worked plus 7 new
> ones) targeting standards track. The new charter text has language that
> the situation will be evaluated for the new charter items, but at least
> my read of it gives a default answer of "standards track".  In my view
> there are work items that would benefit from being targeted for an
> experimental round before made standards, and I thought the charter
> should have said that. 
> 
> There was pushback for my suggestion to do that, however. I do not plan
> to stand in the way of the working group making this charter update, but
> I wanted to be on record that the I didn't think this was a good idea.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp