Luigi:
On document status:
- DDT and NAT being adopted — will submit new revisions.
- GEO and TE docs: IESG review ongoing, a couple of discuss to resolve.
Alberto: For Reliable Transport and EID Mobility — authors promised a new version by Montreal.
Presenter: Alvaro Retana
Time allotment: ~10 minutes
🔗 Draft Link
Alvaro: RFC 8060 (experimental) defines the canonical address format for LISP. The goal is to move it to Standards Track with minimal changes. For -02:
- Reorganized structure, fixed one errata (typo)
- Updated references
- Removed mentions to "experimental" and “unapproved types” text
Alvaro: What do we do with “unapproved types” that aren’t in the registry? If they are implemented we should include them. What do we do for unapproved types that are not implemented? Do we include them in the registry or drop them? There are 6 unapproved types, we have received implementation reports for 4 of them. There are two types (Type 6 “Opaque Key”, Type 8 “Nonce Locator”) for which there are no implementation reports.
Stig: The space is 256 entries — no harm in adding them.
Alvaro: Assignment policy (“Specification Required”) is not restrictive.
Dino: Unsure if Type 8 was ever implemented; similar uncertainty for Opaque Key.
Alvaro: Deprecating could lose code-point values; keeping them maintains compatibility. Consensus on keeping all defined types in the registry.
Alvaro: Next Steps are address WG reviews, add operational considerations, merge vendor-specific and GEO LCAF content, prepare for WG Last Call. Most of this is incorporating things the WG has already approved. We just need to make sure we keep things consistent. Hopefully we can handle this on the list and have it ready in the next few months.
Presenter: Alberto Rodriguez Natal
Time allotment: ~10 minutes
🔗 Draft Link
Alberto: Mostly a refresh — added minor edits, acronyms, acknowledgments. Plan:
- Follow LCAF evolution to incorporate GEO coordinates and Vendor LCAF.
- Coordinate with Alvaro’s work on LCAFbis.
- Once complete, proceed to WG Last Call.
Presenter: Vengada Prasad Govindan
Time allotment: ~5 minutes
🔗 Draft Link
Prasad: Significant rewrite to connect with “LISP Uberlay” draft for complex multi-fabric/multi-site deployments. Update:
Dino: Do you want LISP Uberlay adopted as a WG document?
Prasad: Yes — it’s foundational to the deployment architecture.
Luigi: Adoption discussion to occur on the mailing list.
Presenter: Vengada Prasad Govindan
Time allotment: ~5 minutes
🔗 Draft Link
Prasad: Intention is to merge RFC 8059 and RFC 9798 (both experimental) into one Standards Track document without changing functionality.
Plan:
- Merge into single doc, reorganize text for readability.
- Reuse existing IANA code-points for backward compatibility.
- Avoid introducing new TLVs or functionality.
Luigi: For the code-points you can ask IANA to reuse.
Time allotment: ~20 minutes
Dino: Two general discussion points:
1. Transport Draft and Multicast QUIC
Dino: We have a transport draft that removed QUIC. Should we take on work related to that? Also, multicast QUIC is gaining traction and could help scale the mapping system. Both fit our current agenda. Do we want to take these on, and who would sign up?
Prasad: Can you clarify what you mean by multicast QUIC?
Dino: Multicast QUIC allows sending data streams over multicast, assuming the network supports native multicast (e.g., PIM, IGMP). It provides reliable multicast by using FEC at receivers to handle loss. When FEC cannot repair, ACKs and retransmissions are done via unicast, keeping retransmissions minimal. This gives us a reliable layer.
Dino: A use case is the decentralized LISP draft, where we multicast registrations to many map-servers. QUIC would make that reliable. This could be a work item if the working group agrees. Best next step is to open a discussion on the mailing list and look for volunteers. I’m happy to help and involve new contributors.
Luigi: Please take it to the mailing list and seek volunteers.
2. Agent-to-Agent Interoperability and Mobility
Dino: There is growing interest in agent-to-agent (AI) interactions and interoperability between legacy devices and software agents. Agents are likely to be mobile, moving to where models are hosted for low latency, which makes tracking them challenging. This looks like a new mobility use case that fits the LISP charter. If we do nothing, other, less suitable solutions may emerge. Thoughts?
Luigi: It’s interesting and significant. Let’s take it to the mailing list, see who is interested, and identify who will do the work.
Dino: I’ll start two separate threads—one for multicast QUIC and one for agent mobility—then solicit volunteers, including from outside the LISP community. Is the working group comfortable pursuing these? We can survey interest if needed.
Luigi: Sounds good. Splitting into two threads is better. Proceed via the mailing list.