[lisp] Lars Eggert's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-04-04: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-04-04: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-lisp-04-04

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### "LISP", paragraph 1
```
  - LISP for Traffic Engineering: Specifics on how to do traffic engineering on
  LISP deployments could be useful. For instance, encode in a mapping not only
  the routing locators associated to EIDs, but also an ordered set of
  re-encapsulating tunnel routers (RTRs) used to specify a path.
```
"Could be useful" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want
 to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item?

### "LISP", paragraph 0
```
  - NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP
  tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node).
```
Stick it into UDP and use existing NAT traversal solutions.
Re-engineering all that does not seem worthwhile.

### "LISP", paragraph 2
```
  - LISP External Connectivity: [RFC6832] defines the Proxy ETR element, to be
  used to connect LISP sites with non-LISP sites. However, LISP deployments could
  benefit from more advanced internet-working, for instance by defining
  mechanisms to discover such external connectivity.
```
"Could benefit" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want
 to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item?

### "LISP", paragraph 1
```
  - Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move across
  different LISP xTRs and/or LISP xTRs that are themselves mobile. Support needs
  to be provided to achieve seamless connectivity.
```
"Some deployment scenarios include it" is a pretty weak motivator.
 Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool