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



Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>     > From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
> 
>>     > I though the consensus from the last meeting was that LISP would be an
>>     > IRTF WG, not IETF.
> 
>> To me, it would seem more proper to consider the question in terms of goals,
>> proper forum, etc, rather than simply 'what people's opinions are'.
> 
>> Using that framework, I ask two questions: i) is the intention to produce a
>> complete protocol specification, in sufficient detail to produce an
>> interoperable, functional implementation, along with at least one
>> implementation (this entire term being something I view as a 'necessary but
>> not sufficient' condition), and ii) more important, is it intended to put the
>> product of that effort into actual service, i.e. have people actually do real
>> work using it. Something that fulfils both of these I would _tend_ to think
>> belongs in the IETF, not the IRTF.
> 
>> It's my understanding that the LISP effort answers 'yes' to both, so doing
>> something in the IETF does seem appropriate, given that.
> 
> Agreed. The other aspect is the sum of the documents; if they are all
> experimental, then it seems to me that this belongs in the IRTF. I
> appreciate that there have been examples of experimental suites that
> were not done in the IRTF, but that seems like something to be
> corrected, not repeated.
> 
> Joe

One final note on this point; this discussion is now rehashing the one
from the mic in Dublin. We assessed the rough consensus there; it was
rough (3/2 vs. 1/3), and pointed towards IRTF.

As I noted, we're either going to continue to rehash this until (A) the
Lisp team gets the answer they want, or (B) we're going to take our cues
from either the outcome of the meeting in Dublin or IESG direction.

I sincerely hope the IESG steps in and helps us get towards a result
somewhere from the (B) pile. If not, i.e., if repeatedly asking a
question until the desired answer is provided is appropriate, perhaps we
can just skip this silly WG stuff altogether and just publish everything
as-is.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkkl9UACgkQE5f5cImnZrvljACaAyxiXiERtatvbK8mklJbuAST
qbQAn0eXQ3DpsJKvqr8Gtxval7Xfu+Xt
=BANF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----