Subject: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 3

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:47:47 +0100

Another question: Luigi proposed the possibility of including LISP as
another possibility in the Tunneling layer
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00073.html).

Should this be also somewhat included in the Charter?

Thanks,

Jose

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:44:39 +0100

Hi,

obviously I am in favour of this ;-)
I think there are benefits is such solution.

Yet, if the WG is interested in this may be a different kind of document should be added to the charter. 

Point 3 of the charter refers to "only standard protocols are being used" and aims at a "best current practice" document. 
LISP is still considered "experimental", hence, I am not sure it can be included in a BCP document. 

ciao

Luigi

On 9 Jan. 2013, at 10:47 , Jose Saldana <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Another question: Luigi proposed the possibility of including LISP as another possibility in the Tunneling layer (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00073.html).
>

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:55:20 +0100

Hi, Luigi.

I get your point: perhaps we cannot mix LISP and TCMTF in draft (A).

However, since it seems that they can work together, and present some
synergies, we could think about a specific “experimental” draft. It could be
done within the LISP WG or within the TCMTF WG (if created). Perhaps it
would make more sense in the LISP WG.

However, I think this would have to wait a little. Before, we would need to:

- Better explore the synergies between LISP and TCMTF

- Have a clearer idea of TCMTF, I mean, move some steps towards the
standardization. By now, the “ugly truth” is that TCMTF is still a “personal
submission”

What do you think?

Jose

De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de enero de 2013 12:45
Para: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Asunto: Re: Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 3

Hi,

Yet, if the WG is interested in this may be a different kind of document
should be added to the charter. 

Point 3 of the charter refers to "only standard protocols are being used"
and aims at a "best current practice" document. 

LISP is still considered "experimental", hence, I am not sure it can be
included in a BCP document. 

ciao

Luigi

Another question: Luigi proposed the possibility of including LISP as
another possibility in the Tunneling layer (
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00073.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00073.html).

Thanks,

Jose

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:53:30 +0100

Hi Jose,

On 10 Jan. 2013, at 11:55 , Jose Saldana <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, since it seems that they can work together, and present some synergies, we could think about a specific “experimental” draft. It could be done within the LISP WG or within the TCMTF WG (if created). Perhaps it would make more sense in the LISP WG.
>  

Well, it really depends on how the TCMTF evolves. However, you are right that there is no space for LISP in (A) and is worth to wait a little bit before going forward on this path.

> - Better explore the synergies between LISP and TCMTF

Agreed.

> - Have a clearer idea of TCMTF, I mean, move some steps towards the standardization. By now, the “ugly truth” is that TCMTF is still a “personal  submission”
>  

Yes, but things are moving ;-)

ciao

Luigi