On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to see Grow work on these documents. > My inclination would be to target the for publicaiton as Informational RFCs.
That seems reasonable. Inside a single ASN or single set of cooperating ASN's it seems reasonable to accept longer stretch and win some longer life for your gear. > I do think we need an I-D that explores / explains the applicable space > better, so folks can evaluate the cost-benefit tradeoff of using this > approach. Whether that ends up dying off, becoming its own document, or > incorporated in part into the main document, is much less of an issue for > me. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > PS: I presume that there are some procedural obstacles to be overcome in I THINK all that's required is a consensus that the doc should be homed in 'some group' (call it grow-wg for this discussion) and then to officially adopt it as such (via chairs sending the requested doc forward as an accepted WG doc, where it gets renamed from draft-paul-blah to draft-grow-blah)... Are there any folks attempting to block this as a work-item for Grow? -Chris > adopting this work. If the WG wants to do this, and if the chairs want some > help dealing with any procedural obstacles, I am happy to help. > > Paul Francis wrote: >> >> From: >> Paul Francis <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Date: 04/24/2009 05:01 PM >> Subject: [GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item >> Sent by: [email protected] >> >> Gang, >> >> I would like to start the discussion of making Virtual Aggregation, which >> I presented at the GROW meeting in SF, a working group item. >> >> A new version of the document has been posted, which mainly consists of >> minor clarifications from folks who make up an expanded author list (Zhang, >> Jen, and Raszuk). It is at >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-intra-va-01.txt. >> >> Note that there are two companion documents associated with this, one each >> on the specifics of MPLS and IP-in-IP tunnels in support of VA. These >> have not been updated, though we expect them to be soon. (These are at >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-francis-va-tunnels-mpls-00.txt and >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-va-tunnels-gre-00.txt >> respectively) >> >> I think that there are mainly two things to discuss: >> >> 1. What additional documentation, if any, is needed (requirements, >> scenarios, MIB, ....)? >> 2. What should the status of the produced RFCs be (informational, BCP, >> standard)? >> >> Regarding the first, I do think that a requirements/scenarios document is >> a good idea, but would like to hear opinions. >> >> Regarding the second, there are arguments for and against each type. >> Strictly speaking no protocol changes are needed (except for a case >> involving GRE tunnels with key values, which require an extended communities >> attribute to convey the key info). So informational or BCP could both work. >> I'm inclined towards BCP, but would like to hear opinions. Even possibly >> we could start this as a working group item without making this decision >> just yet. >> >> Thanks all, >> >> PF >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
