Re: [lisp-interest] While we're waiting for lisp@ietf.org to come up.....

[Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, all,

I'm a bit confused. I though the consensus from the last meeting was
that LISP would be an IRTF WG, not IETF.

Joe

PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
> dave: 
> 
> here belwo comments on the charter: 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-list-interest@lists.civil-tongue.net 
>> [mailto:owner-list-interest@lists.civil-tongue.net] On Behalf 
>> Of David Meyer
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:07 AM
>> To: lisp-interest@lists.civil-tongue.net
>> Subject: [lisp-interest] While we're waiting for 
>> lisp@ietf.org to come up.....
>>
>> 	Here's the proposed LISP WG charter. Comments greatly
>> 	appreciated. 
>>
>> 	Dave
>> ---
>>
>>
>> LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)
>>
>> Last Modified: 2008-11-18
>>
>> Chair(s):
>>  TBD
>>
>> Internet Area Director(s):
>>  Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
>>  Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
>>
>> Routing Area Advisor:
>>  TBD
>>
>> Secretary(ies):
>>  TBD
>>  
>> Mailing Lists:
>>  General Discussion: lisp@ietf.org
>>
>> Description of Working Group:
>>
>> LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that
>> respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006
> 
> wouldn't it be appropriate to state the purpose is to experiment whether
> the proposals are appropriate answers to the questions of the IAB ?
> 
>> Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to
>> form a working group whose charter (see below) is to work on the
>> design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system
> 
> i would mention explicitly "protocol architecture and spec." 
> 
>> [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working
> 
> text should make clear that interworking also applicable to mcast.  
> 
>> group will encourage and support interoperable LISP
>> implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate
>> mapping systems.
> 
> shouldn't it be the other way around: specify requirements and then
> implementations ?
> 
>> Goals and Milestones:
>>
>> Mar 2010  Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for
>>           Experimental.
>>
>> Mar 2010  Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for
>>           Experimental.
>>
>> Mar 2010  Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG
>> 	  for Experimental.
>>
>> Mar 2010  Re-charter or close.
> 
> i would like to see a document also documenting experimental results
> from various execution of the protocol spec.
> 
> thanks,
> -d.
> 
>> Internet-Drafts:
>> 	draft-farinacci-lisp-9.txt
>> 	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt
>> 	draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
>> 	draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt
>>
>> Request For Comments:
>> 	  None
>>
>>
>> References
>> ----------
>> [0]     Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on
>>         Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984.
>>
>> [1]     Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>>         (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-09.txt.
>>
>> [2]	Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology
>> 	(LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
>>
>> [3]	Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation
>> 	Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt.
>>
>> [4]	Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and
>> 	IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt.
>>
>> [5]	Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map
>> 	identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt.
>>
>> [6]     Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
>> 	"LISP for Multicast Environments",
>> 	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt.  
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkkYe4ACgkQE5f5cImnZrt11QCglV0MkJoPXPdEpPQPBe3M8Tpl
liQAoO4cy0dfvL5VaK5mq1mMDzl2i/nx
=0/lQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----