IETF conflict review for draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat
conflict-review-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat-01

Discuss

Paul Wouters
(Martin Duke)

Yes

Éric Vyncke

No Objection

Erik Kline
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Andrew Alston)
(Robert Wilton)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Paul Wouters
Discuss
Discuss (2024-01-31 for -00) Sent 
As Martin said, I would also like to understand the relationship between lispers.net work and the IETF. And the significance of the lispers.net deployment to warrant an informational rfc outside of the LISP WG.

I am particularly worried by this note of the ISE (in the shepherds review section):

     The hope was that draft-ermagen-lisp-nat-traversal would progress, but thus far it has not done so.

This leads to the question why it did not progress in the LISP WG. I would like to know what the LISP WG and the LISP chairs have to say on this. It might very well be that the WG said something like "we don't have time, we don't care if it goes via ISE" and that this is the proper way forward - I am just missing data points to conclude that.
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Comment (2024-01-18 for -00) Not sent 
The content of this I-D could be improved by some editorial changes, e.g., defining NAT (is it NAPT ? NPTv6 ?) and the IANA section should fix the sub-registry name.

The current (and future) LISP WG charters have work item related to NAT, but this informational text only describes an existing implementation.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-01-31 for -00) Not sent 
I support the DISCUSS positions of Martin and Paul.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2024-01-31 for -00) Sent 
I don't detect any malign intent to "end run" the IETF process, but if LISP is chartered to produce an RFC in this space, I believe it is deleterious to have an earlier RFC on the same subject, and have some questions about the status of the proposal.

Is this design being considered for the LISP solution? If so, it would be appropriate to document in an internet-draft as an input to the WG process. It would be inappropriate to generate RFCs for proposals at start.

The one exception is if this has been meaningfully deployed in a way that will not be reversed/updated given the outcome of LISP. In that case, it would be worthwhile for archival purposes.
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Robert Wilton Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -00)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent