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

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Eliot Lear ,
    draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat-07

The IESG has completed a review of draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat-07
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG recommends that 'lispers.net LISP NAT-Traversal Implementation
Report'  NOT be published as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF
work done in WG LISP and recommends not publishing the document at this time.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat/

A URL of the reviewed Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot discuss]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.