Hi. I'd like to focus discussion on the specific goals you propose for your charter changes. > A description of LISP as being part of the "core-edge separation" > class of scalable routing solutions, noting that "map-and-encap" > was a term used earlier on for this class. So far, you are the only one who has advanced this particular terminology distinction as important. I'd appreciate hearing comments from others. > An understanding that EID space is purely for end-user networks, to > provide multihoming etc. in a scalable fashion. Your changes in this area may be part of addressing the concern that Margaret, Lixia, and I believe Bryan raised. I think from your most recent messages you may share that concern. > An introduction to ITRs and ETRs and description of what they do. Again, comments welcome from others. > A clearer understanding of Locator Identifier Separation in terms > of it: > Not involving separate namespaces - contrary to incorrect > statements about LISP in an IETF Journal article etc. and > in contrast to the HIP approach to Locator Identifier Separation > which does involve separate namespaces. You've presented one definition of namespace. I strongly suspect that there are a lot of other definitions floating around and that the term was being used loosely. I have not seen a lot of support for your strict definition of namespaces. However, I think that addressing Bryan, Lixia and Margaret's concern needs to be addressed by making this distinction clear. I think that avoiding the term namespace or defining what we mean by namespace will be more productive than an argument over its definition and whether we have found the clearly correct definition for our field. At least as I understand it, your proposed charter text change in this area seems to do this. > Being an operational distinction in how addresses in different > sub-sections of the address range (perhaps we should mention > global unicast address range). I think something along these lines is starting to sound like it is needed. >> This distinction only being applicable to ITRs and ETRs - not to > hosts or ordinary routers. As I understand it, the only XTRs need to care about EID vs RLOC distinctions is one of the core design goals of LISP. It seems like including it in the charter may add clarity and constrain our work.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.