IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 3

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 10 January 2013 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E62921F86D9 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b8mT0FECVKhv for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (mail-we0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D946821F86AC for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z53so311720wey.34 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=fGogHQjuHa9v3Oi7tFiGvfNC8ghz+B54OmGRDNhTAU0=; b=kPx1aeX+B2DP2MCw9Pkd4djSxcRJ3fQ8E41FJyI2sJHOC9ZyqLN3WHRXBttMd/FEB7 sAoJLtavZYbAe0QRw/ZStcEiY4gVEPEuZTGHCZ7i4M5jjyQq3rgzAbK7dd2M8sAb68cd kQ9NdSNvMTefE25z/bW08/rTFC83JMvchaGn3osQ7meWxi0GdTytKrNXwanyP1H0409B jEcMHbe5/VZuZR4CYOVdQZkq6rdKxMFF/ERdXLK7kN/UYtjKPr9IXc/Aw5trrnGlMKK8 gQF0gKBRwkz39KuP/duv1BLt4Qihy8XZ7gdF7rx4VOS3RoIdVW+tS+LGr9gaxvX2u+Uy 3RLQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.235.100 with SMTP id ul4mr115596414wjc.7.1357829614528; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp164-04.enst.fr (dhcp164-04.enst.fr. [137.194.165.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hg17sm8699150wib.1.2013.01.10.06.53.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B790F738-528C-43B8-AD5C-45F362C38558"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <002d01cdef20$fc49a850$f4dcf8f0$@unizar.es>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:53:30 +0100
Message-Id: <052A3926-115B-4941-A5D7-2DEB368C046A@gigix.net>
References: <008101cdee4e$7881e190$6985a4b0$@unizar.es> <3FE9B877-78C2-4C0C-B8CB-2C75A84CEBC2@gigix.net> <002d01cdef20$fc49a850$f4dcf8f0$@unizar.es>
To: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/Ei4KThJLG7RTydgB6xla5cv56Yy4VvHWiTcrM7dyp8gWlU2Rov/s/p4EhoWyr9DuTDPZ
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 3
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:53:40 -0000

Hi Jose,


On 10 Jan. 2013, at 11:55 , Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

> Hi, Luigi.
>  
> I get your point: perhaps we cannot mix LISP and TCMTF in draft (A).
>  
> However, since it seems that they can work together, and present some synergies, we could think about a specific “experimental” draft. It could be done within the LISP WG or within the TCMTF WG (if created). Perhaps it would make more sense in the LISP WG.
>  

Well, it really depends on how the TCMTF evolves. However, you are right that there is no space for LISP in (A) and is worth to wait a little bit before going forward on this path.

> However, I think this would have to wait a little. Before, we would need to:
>  
> - Better explore the synergies between LISP and TCMTF

Agreed.

> - Have a clearer idea of TCMTF, I mean, move some steps towards the standardization. By now, the “ugly truth” is that TCMTF is still a “personal  submission”
>  

Yes, but things are moving ;-)

ciao

Luigi


> What do you think?
>  
> Jose
>  
> De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net] 
> Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de enero de 2013 12:45
> Para: jsaldana@unizar.es
> CC: tcmtf@ietf.org; 'Joel M. Halpern'
> Asunto: Re: Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 3
>  
> Hi,
>  
> obviously I am in favour of this ;-)
> I think there are benefits is such solution.
>  
> Yet, if the WG is interested in this may be a different kind of document should be added to the charter. 
>  
> Point 3 of the charter refers to "only standard protocols are being used" and aims at a "best current practice" document. 
> LISP is still considered "experimental", hence, I am not sure it can be included in a BCP document. 
>  
> ciao
>  
> Luigi
>  
> On 9 Jan. 2013, at 10:47 , Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
> 
> 
> Another question: Luigi proposed the possibility of including LISP as another possibility in the Tunneling layer (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00073.html).
>  
> Should this be also somewhat included in the Charter?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jose
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email