Is it ok if I make a few changes/fixes and then post that with the new naming?
PF From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> To: Paul Francis <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 05/20/2009 06:38 PM Subject: Re: [GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Paul Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> >> Re: [GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item >> >> >> > >> >> 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? > > If there are such people, I don't think they will come out until we take > the next step here. > > So, I suggest that we go ahead and call these grow-wg accepted documents, > and issue them under the grow name. Agreed, it's been ~3wks since the last note on VA to grow, with no folks piping up saying otherwise, could you re-send your doc to the editor with the proper naming? -Chris >> >> -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 > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
