Folks,
The IESG would like to know whether people believe that
we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the
next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary.
Here are the current facts on the ground:
o We have fairly mature set of
Dave,
Can you give a little more background on these two points,
for those who aren't following things that closely:
o Significant global deployment is underway
o We have 2 (or more) implementations
What's the nature of the deployment, and am I correct
in thinking that only one of
Brian,
Can you give a little more background on these two points,
for those who aren't following things that closely:
o Significant global deployment is underway
Check http://www.lisp4.net (IPv4) or http://www.lisp6.net
(IPv6). There's a schematic of the global
Hi,
I am sorry if I'm a bit lost here. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough
attention. Did the RRG conclude and decide to take LISP or is this a
parallel activity?
If this is a parallel activity what is the intended connection to the RRG
work?
Sorry for the perhaps simple questions and thanks
BOF requests for the upcoming meeting are listed in
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart
I would like to ask for a couple of things. First, are we missing
something? If yes, its about time you send the ADs mail...
Second, take a look at the proposals and provide feedback either
I have a few personal comments on the charter.
In the first BOF we had an experiment aspect in the charter as well. The
new charter is pure protocol specification. I am actually interested in
two outputs from the potential WG: First, the protocol specifications
themselves will be useful for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Meyer wrote:
...
It would likely be possible to develop a list of
questions (such as the one you mention), but experimental
design should not, IMO, be a part of this WG. It is not
only that the scope of potentially
On 2009-01-21 13:57, Joe Touch wrote:
...
If the purpose of the WG is experiments, then this work clearly belongs
back on the IRTF, which is not the goal AFAICT (I bring this up only to
reinforce David's view that experiments are out of scope).
I'm guessing that Jari's comment is because of
Jari,
But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how
people feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF WG,
what the scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And if
not, what would make it so.
There are reasonably stable specs that people can
