Hi Alberto,

> On Oct 11, 2023, at 14:33, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> A few thoughts on the charter after going through the latest revision and the 
> discussion on this thread.
>  
> * We have a milestone for LCAFbis, but LCAF is not mentioned in the work 
> items. Is LCAF supposed to be covered by the “Standards Track Documents” work 
> item? Same for DDT. If so, I would mention them as examples of possible 
> “Standards Track Documents”. Also, I agree with Padma that we should extend 
> the work item to include “language to cover incremental features, behaviors 
> and specifications”.
>  

The idea was not to list all candidates, but you are right that if we have them 
in the milestones….


> * I think the external connectivity work item could be generalized to cover 
> both the external-connectivity draft as well as any other work adjacent to 
> 6832, for instance something like:
>  
> “LISP Internetworking: [RFC6832] defines the Proxy ETR element, to be used to 
> connect LISP sites with non-LISP sites. However, LISP deployments could 
> benefit from more advanced internetworking, for instance by defining 
> mechanism to discover such external connectivity.”

Ack


>  
> * Similar comment for TE. I think we could be more general, something like:
>  
> “Traffic Engineering and LISP: Specifics on how to do traffic engineering on 
> LISP deployments could be useful, for instance some use cases…”

Ack


>  
> * On the milestones section, I think LCAFbis could be done much sooner. Also, 
> I agree with Dino we should have name-encoding sooner as well (this is partly 
> my fault, I’m halfway on my shepherds writeup, will try to close on that).

If we finish something sooner than expected there is no harm. 


>  
> * Based on the discussion on San Francisco, it is not entirely clear to me 
> the consensus of the WG regarding “Submitting a LISP Applicability document 
> to the IESG”. Would it be possible to leave this milestone somehow more open?

What do you mean exactly by “more open”?


Ciao

L.


>  
>  
> I’m also planning to send a PR on GitHub with some editorial comments.
>  
> Thanks,
> Alberto
>  
> From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email protected]>
> Date: Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:46 PM
> To: LISP mailing list list <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub
> 
> Hello all,
>  
> We have created a repository to gather input for the proposed LISP WG charter 
> presented in our last meeting.
>  
> A pointer to the repo below
> https://github.com/lisp-wg/wg-charter
>  
> We welcome your comments and contributions.
>  
> Thanks
> Padma and Luigi

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

Reply via email to