Subject: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:03:01 +1000

I'm comfortable a WG being formed based on the agenda provided.
Cheers
Terry

>         The question is that I would like folks to respond to is
>          "Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda
>          (see below), or should we have another BOF?"
>
>         Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can
>         close on these administrative issues.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Dave

           
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:33:20 -0500 (EST)

> ... claiming that LISP is an appropriate solution to the problems
    > discussed at the IAB's October 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop

Yakov, perhaps I'm confused, but I don't hear anyone claiming that LISP
should be 'anointed' as _the_ solution. In fact, it's explicitly being put
forward as an Experimental protocol.

What other path forward would you suggest for that work? Should LISP work not
be done in the IETF at all, but rather as a closed, private, outside effort?

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:43:52 -0500 (EST)

> From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>

    > The LISP team should do detailed critiques of APT and Ivip as part of
    > convincing IETF folks of the merits of LISP-ALT.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't think the people working on LISP are trying
to "convince" the IETF as a whole of the "merits of LISP".

If some people out there in the Internet technical community think it looks
good, and want to work on it, run it, etc, that's great; but if other people
reach a contrary conclusion, and don't want to work on it, run it, etc (as is
their choice), that's fine too.

Sure, the people working on LISP would like to convince _some_ people that
it's a good idea, so they get i) some help working on it (as much remains to
be done), and ii) some places to deploy it (so some practical experience can
be gained, in seeing how well it works, what problems crop up in actual
service, etc), but that's a very different kettle of fish.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:26:23 -0500 (EST)

>> I don't think the people working on LISP are trying to "convince" the
    >> IETF as a whole of the "merits of LISP".

    > I don't know the criteria is for creating a WG, but I guess the IETF
    > doesn't create them except for projects which have sufficient merit in
    > general

Sure - but that is not in contradiction to my statement above. The IETF has a
long history of creating WG's to work on different alternatives. In such
circumstances, WG's simply serve to create standards in an _open_ way; they
do not in any way imply any sort of official IETF preference.

    > I think the LISP team could best facilitate progress towards scalable
    > routing solutions by ... discussing in public why they think their
    > LISP-ALT approach is better than the alternatives.

The community has been discussing these issues for years, going back to
things like Multi6. It's been discussed to death already.

        Noel