Robin, > I haven't yet listened to Friday's meeting, so perhaps some of my > questions would be answered by that. > > My understanding of the RRG's role and planned timeline is based on: > > http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=rrg > http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00686.html (2007-12-02) > > The Routing Research Group (RRG) is chartered to explore > routing and addressing problems that are important to the > development of the Internet but are not yet mature enough > for engineering work within the IETF. > > The group will produce a list of prioritized design goals > and a recommendation for a routing and addressing architecture. > > - floor stays open for new innovative solutions > > - at the same time we encourage efforts on identifying > fundamental commonalities and differences among proposals, > and design tradeoffs. > > - starting from March'08 we will drive the group effort towards > convergence > > - we hope to reach a final recommendation by March '09. > > So I understand that the RRG aims to form rough consensus for a > recommendation to the IESG in March 2009 about what approaches > should be recommended to the IESG for engineering development in an > IETF WG. > > That could be zero, one or more distinct proposals, perhaps various > sub-units of a complete solution, maybe two conflicting proposals or > something else. I guess the preferred option is to achieve rough > consensus on a single cohesive proposal or set of modular proposals > which are regarded as both better than the alternatives and > promising enough to use as the basis for development and deployment. My understanding/summary of what I heard this week (Tuesday, IIRC) is that the RRG will *not* recommend any of the proposed solutions (or any other?) but rather will recommend "concepts". What exactly constitutes a "concept" wasn't clear (at least to me), even though it was briefly discussed. > Does your BOF announcement mean something like this? > > 1 - You think LISP is so practical and desirable that it is "the" > routing scalability solution to the exclusion of others - and > perhaps for other purposes. The LISP BOF proposal has nothing to do with any other proposal. I'll just note that if someone has a proposal that they feel has moved into an engineering phase, the "right thing" (IETF process-wise) to do at that point is propose a BOF, assuming of course that the authors/proponents of that technology want the IETF to standardize that technology. Finally, note that its soley IESG's decision to approve or disapprove BOFs, and if the outcome of a BOF is that the participants of the BOF want to form a WG, that is also soley the IESG's decision. > 2 - You think the RRG's timetable is too slow Yes. > and due to the urgency of the situation you want to move LISP > into the IETF WG phase ASAP. For the what I understand to be the scope of Routing Research Group (the routing system), the issues are well documented. > Your announcement lists a new ID "draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast" > which hasn't been mentioned on the RRG list yet, and which can't be > found at the IETF site or via Google. Some other new ones which > likewise can't be found like this are: > > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-00.txt > http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt > Some haven't been published by the secretariat yet (like the lisp-eid-block draft; in my experience they don't publish drafts during the IETF). Others, like the multicast draft, aren't quite finished, but will be before Dublin. Dave
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature