Hi Damien,

I'm fine for that to be discussed, and elaborated on, in the appropriate
milestone document (and it fits into a number of them) and the pursuant WG
discussion. The Charter as it stands does not preclude attention to such a
topic.

Cheers
Terry


On 24/12/11 7:07 PM, "Damien Saucez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> By its very nature LISP causes resiliency issues. Don't you think that the
> charter should briefly evoke that?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Damien Saucez
> 
> 
> On 21 Dec 2011, at 02:49, Terry Manderson wrote:
> 
>> That works for me in both cases of wearing/not wearing WG hat.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Terry
>> 
>> 
>> On 20/12/11 9:52 PM, "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have looked at the latest version of the new charter. We've made progress
>>> (e.g., I liked the changes Dino suggested on removing some of the inaccurate
>>> definitions) and I'm generally happy, except with three aspects:
>>> 
>>> o  v4 runout is no longer "impending"
>>> 
>>> o  the removal of the VPN etc wording has made the draft vague about what
>>> work
>>> is exactly in scope.
>>> 
>>> o  some editorial things
>>> 
>>> I have tried to fix these in the version below.
>>> 
>>> In any case, I have taken the recharter of the working group to the next
>>> IESG
>>> telechat which IIRC is on the first Thursday in 2012. I'm sure some editing
>>> of
>>> the version below will be needed, hopefully we can complete this before the
>>> IESG call.
>>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>>> Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> 
>>>  Charter
>>> 
>>>  Current Status: Active
>>> 
>>>  Chairs:
>>>      Joel Halpern <[email protected]>
>>>      Terry Manderson <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>>  Internet Area Directors:
>>>      Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
>>>      Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>>  Internet Area Advisor:
>>>      Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>>  Secretaries:
>>>      Wassim Haddad <[email protected]>
>>>      Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>>  Mailing Lists:
>>>      General Discussion: [email protected]
>>>      To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>      Archive:  
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html
>>> 
>>> Description of Working Group:
>>> 
>>> The IAB's October 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop (RFC 4984)
>>> rekindled interest in scalable routing and addressing architectures for
>>> the Internet. Among the many issues driving this renewed interest are
>>> concerns about the scalability of the routing system. Since the IAB
>>> workshop,
>>> several
>>> proposals have emerged which attempt to address the concerns expressed
>>> there and elsewhere. In general, these proposals are based on the
>>> "locator/identifier separation".
>>> 
>>> The basic idea behind the separation is that the Internet architecture
>>> combines two functions, routing locators, (where you are attached to the
>>> network) and identifiers (who you are) in one number space: The IP
>>> address. Proponents of the separation architecture postulate that
>>> splitting these functions apart will yield several advantages, including
>>> improved scalability for the routing system. The separation aims to
>>> decouple locators and identifiers, thus allowing for efficient
>>> aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent
>>> identifiers in the identifier space.
>>> 
>>> LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to most routers. LISP aims
>>> for an incrementally deployable protocol.
>>> 
>>> A number of approaches are being looked at in parallel in other
>>> contexts. The IRTF RRG examined several proposals, some of which were
>>> published as IRTF-track Experimental RFCs.
>>> 
>>> The LISP WG is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol, completing the
>>> ongoing work,
>>> and any items which directly impact LISP protocol structures and are related
>>> to using LISP for improving Internet routing scalability. Specifically, the
>>> group will
>>> work on:
>>> 
>>> - LISP security threats and solutions
>>> - MIBs
>>> - deployment models
>>> - allocation of EID space
>>> - alternate mapping system designs
>>> 
>>> In addition, if work chartered in some other IETF WG requires changes
>>> in the LISP base protocol or any items which directly impact LISP
>>> protocol structures, then the LISP WG is chartered to work on such
>>> changes.
>>> 
>>> The working group will encourage and support interoperable LISP
>>> implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate mapping
>>> systems. The Working Group will also develop security profiles for LISP
>>> and the various LISP mapping systems.
>>> 
>>> It is expected that the results of specifying, implementing, and testing
>>> LISP will be fed to the general efforts at the IETF and IRTF to understand
>>> which
>>> type of a solution is optimal. The LISP WG is not chartered to develop a
>>> standard
>>> solution for solving the routing scalability problem at this time. The
>>> specifications developed by the WG are Experimental and labeled with
>>> accurate disclaimers  about their limitations and not fully understood
>>> implications
>>> for Internet traffic. In addition, as these issues are understood, the
>>> working group will analyze and document the implications of LISP on
>>> Internet traffic, applications, routers, and security. This analysis
>>> will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing. The analysis
>>> should also look at scalability and levels of state required for
>>> encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on as well as the
>>> manageability and operability of LISP. Specifically, the group will work on:
>>> 
>>> - documenting areas that need experimentation
>>> - summarizing the results of implementation, experiments, and deployment
>>> experience
>>> - describing the implications of employing LISP
>>> - operational guidance for using LISP
>>> 
>>> Goals and Milestones
>>> 
>>> Jun 2012    Forward draft-ietf-lisp-mib to the IESG
>>> Jun 2012    Forward draft-ietf-lisp-sec to the IESG
>>> Jun 2012    Forward to the IESG an operational document which should
>>>             include cache management and ETR synchronization
>>>             techniques (draft-ietf-lisp-deployment).
>>> Dec 2013    Publish an example cache management specification.
>>> Dec 2013    Forward to the IESG an evaluation of the security threat to
>>>             cache maintenance (draft-ietf-lisp-threats)
>>> Dec 2013    Forward to the IESG a document addressing the areas which
>>>             require further experimentation.
>>> Jun 2014    Evaluate the applicability and coverage for LISP from a
>>>             reuse of SIDR technology.
>>> Jun 2014    Summarize results of specifying, implementing, and testing
>>>             LISP and forward to IESG and/or IRTF.
>>> Jun 2014    Analyze and document the implications of LISP deployments in
>>>             Internet topologies and forward to IESG for publication.
>>> Dec 2014    Re-charter or close
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to