Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 04 January 2016 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 9B2CC1ACD0C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TEA26lz2KrQ9 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 363061ACD00 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7C78C0EB3; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1451949022; bh=lGzn8YqguhZ3DNBe6rQzSrrSzgvd3s/YSmzK7Wc0KXE=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZuEdx9x6weLbGyfSeD9l41mCvU/Q63+a6tyh3Pb54TwYZFoK2ODO1MZJl66CIdZXA 0n9g6W0XGt2xtNKxWdaowfmutrQ+8p4T/MkrqMZ2C06v9iUmzR475ksABTwnoZ0EW7 JR8h3MPpD2BmhRO/qwQ1LUTNUY3sxvi0S/LaVEWU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D42E8C0EA8; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:10:21 -0800 (PST)
To: Sharon <sbarkai@gmail.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
References: <08A51E69-008C-4DBE-9707-996468F46FC3@gigix.net> <8EB52655-5FF5-44DE-A286-D79E4BB423B2@gmail.com> <AF133C2D-5627-408F-8B42-BA4E7E3FA5E3@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <568AFBC2.2020103@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:09:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AF133C2D-5627-408F-8B42-BA4E7E3FA5E3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/vC8RCd00gb5xaUAD2NyOQz3aPxg>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Update Proposed 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: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:10:23 -0000

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 <farinacci@gmail.com> 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
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp