On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I wanted to provide some background on this question.
As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis
we had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation
and small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing
its work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions,
including map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations
thereof. I do not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time
we are NOT considering any IETF standards in this area. We are,
however, potentially interested in working groups targeting
experimental specifications so that we can get more experience about
the various technical solutions, different people can build systems
that work together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP
effort; they also had a working group that produced experimental
RFCs to complement the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP
group.
My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic
was very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time
they felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also
technical debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on
the WG formation question. So I did not view the results as final.
Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create
some form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the
proponents were only interested in a working group.
So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts
as well. We got feedback in the BOF, there's been further
discussion, and work on various fronts has progressed. Its time to
complete the discussion about the fate of this effort. We need to
see if additional information or further changes can result in a WG
proposal that is acceptable to the community or not. If we can reach
a decision on the list,
Might I ask (given the multiple cross-threading going on in this
discussion) whether you specifically mean the [email protected] list ?
If so, can we cut down on the cross-posting ?
Regards
Marshall
fine, if not I will reserve a second BOF slot for the discussion. I
am mindful of the fact that the list discussion may not reach quite
the same crowd as a f2f meeting, so unless we get a fairly strong
signal in the list we probably need to meet as well.
But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how
people feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF
WG, what the scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And
if not, what would make it so.
Dave, can you post a summary of changes in the proposed charter
since the first BOF? I see that you have already posted some
information on what is going on in the implementation front -- that
was very useful, thanks. Has there been other significant events
since last summer?
Jari
P.S. Maybe we should reply on just one list from now on. Please use,
say, int-area because I do not think everyone's on the lisp list.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
