Hi Dino, > On 14 Mar 2023, at 20:35, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything >> should we enlarge the scope? > > draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility as well.
Right. We can have a general discussion about mobility and what kind of documents we need. Would lisp-mn and lisp-end-mobility be sufficient? Are there any other use cases? > >> LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one >> LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document > > And VPNs are in charter and used quite a lot in LISP deployments, so > draft-ietf-lisp-vpn. Good point. > > Alternative Mapping System Design is part of the charter and the only draft > that is pending is draft-farinacci-lisp-decent but not sure this needs to be > standardized. > > And we need to decide the outcome of draft-ietf-lisp-te and control-plane > security such as draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth and draft-ietf-eid-anonymity. I'm > not sure they need to be standards track. > They can still be experimental if WG is willing to publishing them. The charter may include a security/privacy work item and these documents would be covered. Ciao L. > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
