Robin,
> I haven't yet listened to Friday's meeting, so perhaps some of my
> questions would be answered by that.
>
> My understanding of the RRG's role and planned timeline is based on:
>
> http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=rrg
> http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00686.html (2007-12-02)
>
> The Routing Research Group (RRG) is chartered to explore
> routing and addressing problems that are important to the
> development of the Internet but are not yet mature enough
> for engineering work within the IETF.
>
> The group will produce a list of prioritized design goals
> and a recommendation for a routing and addressing architecture.
>
> - floor stays open for new innovative solutions
>
> - at the same time we encourage efforts on identifying
> fundamental commonalities and differences among proposals,
> and design tradeoffs.
>
> - starting from March'08 we will drive the group effort towards
> convergence
>
> - we hope to reach a final recommendation by March '09.
>
> So I understand that the RRG aims to form rough consensus for a
> recommendation to the IESG in March 2009 about what approaches
> should be recommended to the IESG for engineering development in an
> IETF WG.
>
> That could be zero, one or more distinct proposals, perhaps various
> sub-units of a complete solution, maybe two conflicting proposals or
> something else. I guess the preferred option is to achieve rough
> consensus on a single cohesive proposal or set of modular proposals
> which are regarded as both better than the alternatives and
> promising enough to use as the basis for development and deployment.
My understanding/summary of what I heard this week
(Tuesday, IIRC) is that the RRG will *not* recommend any
of the proposed solutions (or any other?) but rather will
recommend "concepts". What exactly constitutes a
"concept" wasn't clear (at least to me), even though it
was briefly discussed.
> Does your BOF announcement mean something like this?
>
> 1 - You think LISP is so practical and desirable that it is "the"
> routing scalability solution to the exclusion of others - and
> perhaps for other purposes.
The LISP BOF proposal has nothing to do with any other
proposal.
I'll just note that if someone has a proposal that they
feel has moved into an engineering phase, the "right
thing" (IETF process-wise) to do at that point is propose
a BOF, assuming of course that the authors/proponents of
that technology want the IETF to standardize that
technology.
Finally, note that its soley IESG's decision to approve
or disapprove BOFs, and if the outcome of a BOF is that
the participants of the BOF want to form a WG, that is
also soley the IESG's decision.
> 2 - You think the RRG's timetable is too slow
Yes.
> and due to the urgency of the situation you want to move LISP
> into the IETF WG phase ASAP.
For the what I understand to be the scope of Routing
Research Group (the routing system), the issues are well
documented.
> Your announcement lists a new ID "draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast"
> which hasn't been mentioned on the RRG list yet, and which can't be
> found at the IETF site or via Google. Some other new ones which
> likewise can't be found like this are:
>
> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-00.txt
> http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt
>
Some haven't been published by the secretariat yet (like
the lisp-eid-block draft; in my experience they don't
publish drafts during the IETF). Others, like the
multicast draft, aren't quite finished, but will be
before Dublin.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
