Subject: [lisp] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:02:03 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a Yes, with a couple of comments.

I don't think 

"Documents of these work items will as well target standard-track unless
the main content of the document itself clearly demands for a different
type (e.g., informational or experimental). In the latter case the
Working Group needs to determine the proper document class."

is quite right. My understanding is that "determining the proper document
class" is an IESG responsibility in RFC 2026 (which calls this
"publication category"):

   The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
   specification was submitted.  For example, the IESG may decide to
   consider the specification for publication in a different category
   than that requested.  

The fix would be simple enough:

"In the latter case the Working Group needs to determine the recommended
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
document class."

I didn't understand this:

"The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology, and
only use solutions/technology developed in other working groups."

Is it saying that the LISP working group will not modify or extend
solutions/technology developed in other working groups? Or is something
else going on here?

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:58:26 +0200

Hi Spencer,

thanks for your comments. A couple of answers inline.

ciao

Luigi

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 07:02, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> document class.”

Certainly we can swap “proper” with “recommended”. Thanks for the suggestion.

> solutions/technology developed in other working groups?

Yes that is the point. As stated in the charter LISP WG may touch technology developed in other WGs 
(e.g. PIM, NVO3, DMM, SFC). People that participate to the LISP WG can propose extensions/modifications
but the will be (rightfully) discussed in the WG where the technology in object has been defined/developed.

Does it make sense?

ciao

L.

> Or is something

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:37:50 -0500

Hi, Luigi,

> Certainly we can swap “proper” with “recommended”. Thanks for the

Thanks!

> object has been defined/developed.

So I was confused because you're using "will only use" to mean "will use,
but not dork with", and my first impression was that you meant "will only
use solutions/technology developed in other working groups" to mean "and
will not use solutions/technology developed outside the IETF, in places
such as open source software projects or other SDOs".

Your clarification made your meaning much clearer. If this paragraph wasn't
the result of weeks of negotiation, perhaps

"The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology. It
will rely on technologies developed in other working groups, but if it
identifies needs for extensions or modifications, those extensions and
modifications will be addressed in the working groups that developed those
technologies."

would be less ambiguous?

But I'm sure you folks will do the right thing :-)

Spencer

p.s. thanks for forwarding the bounce report from huawei.com - for reasons
that people are still trying to figure out, the datatracker suddenly
decided that my huawei.com mailing address was the right one to use for my
AD role, even though I've never used it for that, and haven't been at
Huawei since last September!

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:15:39 +0200

Hi Spencer,

> On 22 Apr 2016, at 16:37, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

[snip]
> 
> 
> 
> Your clarification made your meaning much clearer. If this paragraph wasn't the result of weeks of negotiation, perhaps 
> 
> "The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology. It will rely on technologies developed in other working groups, but if it identifies needs for extensions or modifications, those extensions and modifications will be addressed in the working groups that developed those technologies."
> 

The sentence reads better, much better. I would just use “It may use” instead on “It will rely on”. So that it will be:

"The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology. It may use technologies developed in other working groups, but if it identifies needs for extensions or modifications, those extensions and modifications will be addressed in the working groups that developed those technologies."

What do you think?

L.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:45:48 -0500

Hi, Luigi,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Your clarification made your meaning much clearer. If this paragraph
> wasn't the result of weeks of negotiation, perhaps
>
> The sentence reads better, much better. I would just use “It may use”
> instead on “It will rely on”. So that it will be:
>
> may use technologies developed in other working groups, but if it

Your suggested text is an improvement - thanks for suggesting it!

Spencer