Subject: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:09:01 -0700

In Vancouver the chairs received a request for the following document to be
adopted as a WG item.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

Here starts a 14 day call for adoption, this call will end on
Tuesday the 28th August, 2012.

Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the
item.

If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, please
also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or
review, (or both) the draft.

Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond appropriately.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Damien Saucez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:39:47 +0200

Hello,

I accept this draft to be WG item.

Willing to review.

Damien Saucez

On 13 Aug 2012, at 08:09, Terry Manderson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:29:43 +0200

I am in favor to adopt this document and will provide review.

Luigi

---

From: Florin Coras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:24:31 +0200

Hi,

I'm in favor of adopting this draft as WG item.

Will provide review.

Florin

---

From: Gregg Schudel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:19:13 -0700

Hello,

I am in favor to adopt this draft to be WG item.

I am willing to review and provide comments.

cheers
gregg

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  .:|:.:|:.  | gregg schudel (ccie#9591) LISP technical mrkting engr
    cisco    | mobile: +1 571 332 2222   email: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
cisco corporate legal statement:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:14:32 -0700

I support this draft to be WG item.

Dino

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:57:07 -0700

> review, (or both) the draft.

Accept document, willing to review (again)

---

From: Michael Hoefling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:39:34 +0200

Regards,
Michael

-- 
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Hoefling, M.Sc.
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70507, fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto: [email-masked]
http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de/staff/hoefling

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:41:02 +0200

Hi,

> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the

Accept, can, have and will contribute. 

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: "Michael Kowal (mikowal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:44:07 +0000

In favor of adopting this draft to be a WG item and willing to
review/comment.

---

From: Fabio Maino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:49:09 -0700

I support the draft and I'm willing to review.

Fabio

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:30:59 -0400

Terry,

The draft documents, among other things, use of LISP for l3vpn (S. 4.1) and l2vpn (S. 4.12.2). Neither of these appear related to the WG charter ("The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol, completing the ongoing work, and any items which directly impact LISP protocol structures and which are related to using LISP for improving Internet routing scalability.")

--John

On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:

> <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:58:38 -0700

John,

The draft is a LISP control message data format document, it is not
specifying the precise behaviors of l2/l3vpn over LISP. It enables those
workgroups to have or work on solutions (should they so choose) that can be
transported by LISP. There is no mandatory statements here to say they must.
Just as the document describes a geo location (s4.4) LISP is the common
denominator here. I do not see any value in splitting this one document into
numerous different documents housed in many different workgroups.

If this draft is accepted by the WG as a WG item, I will be advising the
chairs of the other WGs that are implicated by the fact that LISP could be
used as a transport, that a piece of work in LISP should be reviewed by
them.

I am allowing the call for adoption to go ahead.

Thanks
Terry

On 14/08/12 7:30 AM, "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Terry,
> 
> The draft documents, among other things, use of LISP for l3vpn (S. 4.1) and
> l2vpn (S. 4.12.2). Neither of these appear related to the WG charter ("The
> LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol, completing
> the ongoing work, and any items which directly impact LISP protocol structures
> and which are related to using LISP for improving Internet routing
> scalability.")
> 
> --John
>

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:47:28 -0700

Terry,

> numerous different documents housed in many different workgroups.

Specifying encoding/format without specifying semantics is not going
to produce multi-vendor interoperable implementations.

Moreover, doing this would allow a vendor to label their solution
as "based on IETF standards", effectively creating an end run to
the IETF process.

Given that, the WG should not accept the draft, as it defines a
whole bunch of code points without any companion document that
defines semantics of these code points.

Yakov.

---

From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:16:03 +0000

I support the adoption of this draft as a WG item, I am willing and able
to review and contribute.

Regards,

Victor

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:28:20 -0700

I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a
work group item.

Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion.

I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting
that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion.

I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding code
points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those
comments in the process of developing this draft.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:18:25 -0700

Done.

Dino