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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 09 January 2013 11:44 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 36F3921F86C1 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.832
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.416, 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 VI-Cai+qhJju for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com (mail-we0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB2921F869A for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x48so1008671wey.22 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:44:37 -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=o69ceU4eQwBLbJYRaI0OPzW/r+Ony2B7qqUo3leqJag=; b=YdcwGoUeru+MonanMD8t6TcYxOgZ40b7ZptYlzi5gxZ1E9ItGHorPND7Nf+ZMDa4eO 9BAQ+WqvMX+SgsqyLtt9AN6pojImv/7AEdIVMCorZnnleeCZul3pCqjVcNfc0sb/miwv BJDeBIbRi/4KtnHfHGiD63YDTYju49EyDgw1Jcw9hQdTdfO0RPHzTQdBxD11XvXf7xkb 2NtPi0zi+QOsLL5nXz4ynnaB5wLeZjSNlznSRVRDouzSmjkYxZ103FyQ6byb0RiiA8m4 sbVNLcbEEBPWKLp72JHCsaKYucfrlO89dGiR3rL5HYq3Jwsg+N36tFi33em1CKaR4iGB YSqg==
X-Received: by 10.180.77.35 with SMTP id p3mr2765170wiw.18.1357731877737; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp164-04.enst.fr (dhcp164-04.enst.fr. [137.194.165.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm3sm3525220wib.9.2013.01.09.03.44.36 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F62F26A8-6B0B-4CF6-AC9A-7BBFBE1AD4A5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <008101cdee4e$7881e190$6985a4b0$@unizar.es>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:44:39 +0100
Message-Id: <3FE9B877-78C2-4C0C-B8CB-2C75A84CEBC2@gigix.net>
References: <008101cdee4e$7881e190$6985a4b0$@unizar.es>
To: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3VLVgACSaZbiPV9SQi54tjI4/ldc43B97UZSv+2qL5CoxvP8SP0Z+kgg+1MMhyQQp2xQf
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:44:40 -0000

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
>