Fine from my side as well. Ciao
L. > On Nov 30, 2023, at 14:50, James Guichard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, John et al, > > I have made the necessary changes to the charter as suggested by Luigi and > confirmed by you John. However, for the last issue, do we agree to simply > remove the text "LISP technology has a wide span of potential applications > beyond simple routing." ? I am happy to simply remove it as it does not > really add value as far as I can tell. > > Jim > > From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John Scudder > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 8:26 AM > To: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: John Scudder's Block on charter-ietf-lisp-04-04: (with BLOCK and > COMMENT) > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Hi John, > > Please see my comment inline. > > > On Nov 29, 2023, at 19:41, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected] > <mailto:[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$ > > <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
