Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lisp-04-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of charter-ietf-lisp-04-04 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### "LISP", paragraph 1 ``` - LISP for Traffic Engineering: Specifics on how to do traffic engineering on LISP deployments could be useful. For instance, encode in a mapping not only the routing locators associated to EIDs, but also an ordered set of re-encapsulating tunnel routers (RTRs) used to specify a path. ``` "Could be useful" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ### "LISP", paragraph 0 ``` - NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). ``` Stick it into UDP and use existing NAT traversal solutions. Re-engineering all that does not seem worthwhile. ### "LISP", paragraph 2 ``` - LISP External Connectivity: [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 internet-working, for instance by defining mechanisms to discover such external connectivity. ``` "Could benefit" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ### "LISP", paragraph 1 ``` - Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move across different LISP xTRs and/or LISP xTRs that are themselves mobile. Support needs to be provided to achieve seamless connectivity. ``` "Some deployment scenarios include it" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
