Re: [lisp] WG Charter

"Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com> Wed, 01 July 2015 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kreeger@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6511A9077 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NyflSkEr2ml for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159A01A9074 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2722; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435792276; x=1437001876; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gU1vTYgtLfqBLOJBUncbBdtCXmjPpolgHD4UFVRMiaI=; b=VCJeM2uKbT7G6ApPR52PPYgcGStGa8usMYOFKbHGyYjjSVeEojug2iYI +6JssZp1k2hkUZA3SPLe4FD2rM8lQDC3hyxUeXtQWPjHnv8cUOwWRtUhN KeYHAtrC2kFb2h96tY1+R2s28x6Cn4gRc2GQ9Fqu6I6JzMz+17op65TeM k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DJAwBac5RV/49dJa1RCoMRVF8GvTEJgWQKhXgCgVI4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEEAQEBaxsCAQhGJwslAgQBEhQHiBQNzQ0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEWBItKhClkhCsFjE+HQQGLYJhEJoIMHIFSb4FGgQIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,389,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="8223298"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2015 23:11:16 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t61NBFod015901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 23:11:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.76]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:11:14 -0500
From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] WG Charter
Thread-Index: AQHQtAjLewS2aPbzMEqeBj4b2n0We53HHOGA
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 23:11:14 +0000
Message-ID: <D1B9BE8C.152BF3%kreeger@cisco.com>
References: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604
x-originating-ip: [10.155.164.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0ECD4E953F080847B995DB4A14B23A4B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/uJ96EdZ3UDbYvcJVFdguzOhRuhY>
Subject: Re: [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 23:11:18 -0000

Hi Joel,

I will restate here what I said in the LISP WG meeting in Dallas when
you brought this up.

Since the recharter of NVO3 was made, it opened up other WGs to tailor
their protocols to meet the NVO3 control plane use cases/requirements.
The BESS WG has already made substantial progress in accommodating these
requirements as part of EVPN.

I believe that the scalability properties of the LISP protocols also have
promise to provide a very scalable solution to the NVO3 requirements.
Because of this, I would like to see the LISP WG recharter include the
NVO3 use cases.  Additionally, I can see LISPĀ¹s flexibility useful for
enhancing basic Network Virtualization by serving as a control plane for
SFC as well, especially in conjunction with NVO3 overlays.

Thanks, Larry

On 7/1/15, 7:18 AM, "lisp on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
<lisp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

>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.)
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>_______________________________________________
>lisp mailing list
>lisp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp