Loa Andersson wrote:
David Kessens wrote:
Lixia, Henk,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:54:22AM -0700, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Copying Henk's word,
We have no problem in offering a path forward for the mrt draft,
including timelines - either as individual submission or through a Ops
area working group (although that is a less likely route considering
the desire for quick publication)
David,
as I understand Lixia, the issue is not just finding a way forward
for a particular document, the concern is that there is
*lots of non-concluded work* in this area.
I'm afraid that the case is that a working group in with charter
like grow will find new work with every step it takes. Imaging what
could happen if pwe3 starts using OSPF to circulate routing information
for multi-segment (interdomain) pseudowires.
well, I hope it does not , at least not in the way it was described ... ;-)
However GROW is getting marginal. I believe that there is a time for
every WG to finish and remaining work moved to the area meeting.
we can always find one more things , but that does not mean that the
working group needs to go on meeting and consuming IETF resources.
Luca
I don't think that closing down grow is a good idea.
/Loa
I would like to make it an even bit stronger
(I've sent a similar msg to the ADs earlier): I see values of keeping
GROW for another while. In addition to the need of finishing MRT
work, this group seems appropriate place to help with the coming
effort (which is supposedly topics of Routing area meeting on
Thursday) on the need to better understand BGP table growth and on
what can be done to improve BGP dynamics/churn, topics that have been
covered by GROW in the past.
taking BGP update dynamics as example, well defined protocol
mechanisms exist to dampen routing churns (MRAI, flap damping), but
dampening is probably seeing reduced deployment, and even MRAI is not
universally turned on (I showed some data at IETF61 GROW meeting,
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/04nov/index.html). So it seems to
me these issues are not so much of being on IDR plate but on GROW's.
We need a clear understanding of deployment status of existing
protocol mechanisms and the reasons/causes of why some places don't
do it. There can be need for new protocol knobs (IDR job), but it
seems to me a pre-requisite is a good understanding of issues with
existing knobs.
My concern is that I see a working group that has finished it's
charter and where energy levels to do the work as opposed to doing the
easy thing of proposing new work are quite low.
Note that I believe it will be useful to take elements from the grow
charter to a proposed OPs working group. We still need a place in IETF
where we can discuss these kind of issues.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
