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

As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis we 
had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation and 
small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing its 
work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions, including 
map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations thereof. I do 
not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time we are NOT 
considering any IETF standards in this area. We are, however, 
potentially interested in working groups targeting experimental 
specifications so that we can get more experience about the various 
technical solutions, different people can build systems that work 
together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP effort; they 
also had a working group that produced experimental RFCs to complement 
the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP group.

My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic was 
very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time they 
felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also technical 
debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on the WG 
formation question. So I did not view the results as final. 
Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create some 
form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the proponents were 
only interested in a working group.

So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts as 
well. We got feedback in the BOF, there's been further discussion, and 
work on various fronts has progressed. Its time to complete the 
discussion about the fate of this effort. We need to see if additional 
information or further changes can result in a WG proposal that is 
acceptable to the community or not. If we can reach a decision on the 
list, fine, if not I will reserve a second BOF slot for the discussion. 
I am mindful of the fact that the list discussion may not reach quite 
the same crowd as a f2f meeting, so unless we get a fairly strong signal 
in the list we probably need to meet as well.

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.

Dave, can you post a summary of changes in the proposed charter since 
the first BOF? I see that you have already posted some information on 
what is going on in the implementation front -- that was very useful, 
thanks. Has there been other significant events since last summer?

Jari

P.S. Maybe we should reply on just one list from now on. Please use, 
say, int-area because I do not think everyone's on the lisp list.

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area