Hi Luigi, That sounds good to me, thanks. I’ve removed my BLOCK in anticipation of the changes.
And yes, in my COMMENT, by “final bullet” I meant * LISP Applicability: LISP has proved to be a very flexible protocol that can be used in various use cases not considered during its design phase. [RFC7215<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7215/>], while remaining a good source of information, covers one single use case, which is no longer the main LISP application scenario. The LISP WG will document LISP deployments for the most recent and relevant use cases, so as to update and complement [RFC7215<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7215/>] as needed. —John On Nov 30, 2023, at 5:48 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: Hi John, Please see my comment inline. On Nov 29, 2023, at 19:41, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lisp-04-04: Block 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ER_NGaNCQy2GG0ymlnRARDgzS7hiTiz30jWDdF-VFPv8JwVG6vxbrDVnQKVIT29EL2KLSKrF$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm a little concerned about the unbounded scope the proposed charter gives the working group. I am balloting BLOCK until we have a chance to discuss this: "The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP protocol, including extensions for which the working group has consensus on deeming them necessary". The “extensions” part was the limitation, with the idea of not starting do everything and anything. It's very hard for me to imagine anything at all that would be out of scope according to that criterion, and that tells me the proposed charter should be made more specific. A first question to think about might be "necessary according to what metric or criterion?" Fair enough. What if we add “… deeming them necessary for the use cases identified by the working as main LISP applications. Such use cases have to be documented in an applicability document providing rationale for the work done. This would related with the last milestone about applicability document. We can also add “minor” before “extension” to better clarify that we are talking about limited extensions. Do you think this goes in the right direction? Do you have a better idea? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "LISP technology has a wide span of potential applications beyond simple routing." As Martin pointed out, this statement on its own doesn't seem to add anything. To the extent there is something concrete here, doesn't the final bullet capture it? Not sure which final bullet you refer to. The applicability document? Ciao L.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
