All,
I agree here with John .. the way how I read what is being proposed here
I would call also impractical.
It seems to me that LISP WG just like any other WG should be involved in
the core LISP work and not in any potential new application which will
choose to use LISP.
As example if I would like to propose an overlay which uses LISP to
interconnect set of ALTO servers I would rather work on it in ALTO WG
not in LISP. LISP WG could be just involved as far as being aware about
such work.
That practice has worked very well in the past for large number of other
IETF solutions. L3VPNs or L2VPNs while heavily using BGP are not
standardized in IDR. They are standardized in their respective WGs. MPLS
TE has been topic of MPLS WG and not ISIS, OSPF or RSVP WGs which
extensions are critical part of it.
Best,
R.
Terry,
It seems inappropriate to me that LISP be the sole WG that works on
all things related to LISP. It's standard IETF procedure for one WG
to build on another WG's protocol. There are many examples of this.
Of course review by the LISP WG of any relevant specs (both prior to
and during last call) may be appropriate. This is also SOP.
--John
On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Thanks Dino,
I encourage all LISP WG members to reflect on the questions below
and voice an opinion.
To paraphrase what Dino has written, one proposal (and Dino correct
me if I've oversimplified) is that the LISP WG should become a
working group that contains ALL things LISP. So wherever a body of
work uses LISP encapsulation, or LISP mapping it may gravitate to
here to maintain LISP interoperability and (where appropriate)
protocol cohesion.
..discuss.
:)
Cheers Terry
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
