> One of the things Luigi and I as chairs would like to do in Prague is spend > some time discussing among the WG participants what we want to work on going > forward. To enable this, we would like to start discussion on the list. We > will also follow the face to face with a summary to the list and further > discussion.
Great idea and a long time coming. Glad to hear. > There are two aspects that are related but distinct, so to start this off I > want to identify them and ask folks to comment on them separately. I’ll add more to Fabio’s list when I respond in another email to his email. > First, there is the question of direction for the basic LISP specification. > We can leave it as it is. However, folks have asked us about moving it to > Proposed Standard. Based on our reading and discussion with relevant ADs, > one path to do this would be to refocus the specification away from the core > Internet scaling problems, and instead towards a scalable anxd flexible > overlay technology. This would not change the technical procedures, but > would have significnat impact on the descriptive text. This is fine but I am a bit worried we’ll spend time on “texting” and not creating anything new. We are way overdue in progressing use-case documents that people want to deploy, so I would like to make sure one work item doesn’t gate others. That is, I hope we can work in parallel. Where I do believe we WILL NOT lose focus. > Does the WG think this is a good idea? If so, do folks want to do it? A very good idea IMO. But let’s not put creeping featurism into the exist RFC 6830, if that was your reference to “refocus the specification”. I assume you mean RFC 6830? > Second, there are a large number of pieces that people have proposed (many > with drafts). There are probably too many to include everything in the > charter. Which things do people think are important for the WG. In > particular, explanations of why particular items are important, and comments > pro or con from folks who are not the document authors are particularly > useful to the community. (I doubt that there will be significant negative > comment since I have not seen proposals that are bad ideas. However, the WG > has to prioritize and choose.) My experience with LISP (2 implementations and years of operation and deployment experience) that we can come down to a few protocol solutions that handle many use-cases. So the general IP address mobility use-case solves many other high-level use-cases. That is VM-mobility and LISP Mobile-Node is the same solution it just a question if the EID and RLOC live in the same node (the former it does not but the latter it does). I’ll respond to Fabio’s email with more details. Dino > > Yours, > Joel > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
