Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Supporting John's block.
I’m removing my BLOCK in anticipation of the changes Luigi proposed. Remaining comment: "LISP technology has a wide span of potential applications beyond simple routing." As Martin pointed out, this statement on its own doesn't seem to add anything. To the extent there is something concrete here, doesn't the final bullet capture it?
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-lisp-04-04 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### "LISP", paragraph 1 ``` - LISP for Traffic Engineering: Specifics on how to do traffic engineering on LISP deployments could be useful. For instance, encode in a mapping not only the routing locators associated to EIDs, but also an ordered set of re-encapsulating tunnel routers (RTRs) used to specify a path. ``` "Could be useful" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ### "LISP", paragraph 0 ``` - NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). ``` Stick it into UDP and use existing NAT traversal solutions. Re-engineering all that does not seem worthwhile. ### "LISP", paragraph 2 ``` - LISP External Connectivity: [RFC6832] defines the Proxy ETR element, to be used to connect LISP sites with non-LISP sites. However, LISP deployments could benefit from more advanced internet-working, for instance by defining mechanisms to discover such external connectivity. ``` "Could benefit" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ### "LISP", paragraph 1 ``` - Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move across different LISP xTRs and/or LISP xTRs that are themselves mobile. Support needs to be provided to achieve seamless connectivity. ``` "Some deployment scenarios include it" is a pretty weak motivator. Does anyone want to *deploy* this? If not, does it deserve to be a work item? ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
What does this sentence mean? "The scope of the LISP technology is potentially applicable to have a large span" Does it mean "LISP technology has a wide span of potential applications?" and if so, is that a useful statement in a charter without more specifics?
Nice to see LISP continuing to evolve. Minor issues: - s/Yang/YANG/ - even if LISPers know, suggest to expand acronyms on first use - what is the intended status of the last work item (use cases), I suggest informational - sigh for having a work item about NAT in 2023...