Hey Robin, > Thanks for your reply, in which you wrote: Sure. > > 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. > > OK - I haven't yet listened to the earlier part of the Tuesday > meeting, or the Friday meeting. > > I guess the RRG would recommend development of a set of technical > concepts which would (ideally) fit together to create the complete > solution, or perhaps recommend some parts of the solution for > engineering development while leaving other parts up for further > research and discussion. I think I understand what you're saying, Check me on this: So the RRG should recommend a sort of meta-recommendation, i.e., that the IETF should develop "a set of technical concepts" that others (the IESG?) would use to what, evaluate proposed working group charters for WGs that do the protocol development for some proposal that fits the "set of technical concepts"? Is that close? BTW, if so (I'm at least close), who do you envision developing this set of technical concepts? For example, would we need a working group for that? > I guess the RRG wouldn't recommend "develop the proposals in this > set of IDs", but would carefully describe the key principles and > characteristics of whatever needs to be developed. Do you envision these principles as being at the level like "It is recommended that the IETF develop protocols based on Locator/ID split", or more fine-grained like "It is recommend that the IETF develop protocols based on address rewriting"? Or something even more fine-grained? Also, do you envision that a recommendation could be something unrelated to what the RRG has been focusing on, say, like "It is recommended that the IETF develop protocols based on the NIMROD architecture"? > >> 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. > > OK - I understand you think that engineering development in an IETF > WG is the best way to develop LISP, rather than another year > developing as part of the RRG research phase. > > My view is that the RRG schedule is good, and that the routing > scalability problem isn't so urgent that we need to rush into > engineering development of any of the proposals. Understood. BTW, I'd be glad a talk on at the next RRG on the kinds of lessons we've learned through engineering LISP enough to actually implement it. These include architectural, design, and implementation lessons, as well as insight into how folks might want to deploy a given solution, how they view the OPEX and performance tradeoffs, etc. In any event, I'm glad to do it if folks think such a talk would be interesting and in-scope for the RRG. > My guess is that even if your LISP BOF doesn't lead to a WG this > year, that a map-encap scheme will begin development in a WG by mid > 2009, with some RFCs emerging around 2012. 2012? That is 6 years after the IAB workshop in AMS, and almost 20 years (depending on how you count) since the events that resulted in the IPNg process. That said, implementations, if they don't start before the specs reach RFC status, will require something like another two more years to develop hardware, plus whatever it takes to do software development, dev testing, field testing, ...Now you're talking something (conservatively) like 2015-2018. I don't know about you, but that seems like a very long time. > I don't think this major architectural change to the Internet is so > urgent that we need to rush things faster than what I envisage - > RFCs in 2012. At the very best, your accelerated plan for LISP > would have you in a WG in late 2008, rather than mid 2009. We wanted to be ready to send to documents to the IESG by Mar 2009. As far as chartering a WG, if we do a BOF in Dublin, and the IESG took the issue of a LISP WG up in their next telechat (likely in April), then in theory a WG could be chartered by say, early May, 2008. That would seem to be the tightest practical lower bound on getting a WG chartered. More likely you'd need a few months to bash the charter around with the IESG sponsor (at least that's been my experience every time I've done it), so maybe July or August. So it seems late 2008 is a good guess. > > For the what I understand to be the scope of Routing > > Research Group (the routing system), the issues are well > > documented. > > I don't clearly understand this. What I was trying to say is that it is my sense that the issues/problems with the current routing system/architecture are well documented, for example in the report from the IAB workshop, or in the RADIR problem statement, or any number of presentations from Vince Fuller or Geoff Huston at the NOGs. Dave
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature