Re: [lisp] Charter for discussion at today's meeting

[Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au>]

Short version:    I think there are some good aspects to Dow's new
                  text for para 3, but I still prefer my suggested
                  text, which is shorter.

Links:

  Draft 00 (my numbering scheme) from Jari:
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00262.html  March 13

  My suggested changes to 00:
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00286.html  March 19

  Sam's versions 01 and 02:
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00314.html  March 23
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00342.html  March 25

  Dow's suggested changes to 02:
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00355.html  March 25



Hi Dow,

I think your new suggested text for the Charter is an attempt to
mention in detail LISP's future potential for having separate
namespaces for EIDs and RLOCs.

As I have argued several times, most recently in a reply I just wrote
to Dino (msg00369), according to my understanding of the accepted
meaning of "namespace"

   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/#best

as long as LISP is to be a practical method of solving the routing
scaling problem, then both the EIDs and RLOC addresses for IPv4(6)
need to be part of the global unicast address space of IPv4(6) and
therefore must be separate subsets of this space.  EIDs and RLOCs
cannot have separate namespaces, since that would mean that a single
numeric address could have two separate meanings depending on which
namespace was applied when interpreting it.  There is no way of doing
this without upgrading either all the hosts and/or all the DFZ and
other routers - which cannot be part of any practical solution to the
routing scaling problem.

I think your text is good in that it mentions that HIP always involves
separate namespaces.  However, I think your text is insufficiently
clear about the restrictions that LISP must works under when it is
deployed as a potentially practical solution to the routing scaling
problem.

The Charter is for a brief period of development on the path towards
developing a fully fledged solution to the routing scaling problem.

While I guess this period would not preclude LISP developing in a way
which could, in the future, use separate namespaces, I don't think
this needs to be mentioned at length in the Charter.

I think some changes along the lines I proposed would be more concise,
more helpful to the reader and more focused on the phase of LISP
development which the Charter will apply to:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00286.html

Discussion:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00298.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00309.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00335.html

My rewrite of para 3 has 174 words and yours has 269.

   - Robin