Hi,
Just to put things in perspective I run a few searches today and wrote a
little script to see what was the former GROW WG traffic for already
issued RFCs when AD was Mr. Bonica:
RFC6198 - 5 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 26 messages
RFC6382 - 17 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 53 messages
RFC6396 - 12 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 87 messages
RFC6397 - 4 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 28 messages
RFC6441 - 13 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 47 messages
With discussions reg -va and simple-va we have this:
12 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 77 messages
Then as mentioned below one should consider other working groups like
RRG or IDR also discussing the drafts in question. Last but not least to
serve a community better one could get to some effort to google a bit
and see that juniper-nsp had number of discussions on the very subject
as well:
29 messages -
http://markmail.org/message/wno3b62wv4j7m74e#query:+page:1+mid:vwb3rnzvfo4dawxi+state:results
j-nsp - [j-nsp] Summarize Global Table - 29 messages
Oct 25 - Oct 28 2011
9 messages - [j-nsp] full table ? 20 sep - oct 12 2011
17 messages on IDR - draft on virtual aggregation Jul 2008 -
http://www.archivum.info/[email protected]/2008-07/00008/Re-(Idr)-draft-on-virtual-aggregation.html
If those facts and numbers do not provide a sufficient basis to proceed
with the -va and simple-va documents I do not know what does. If we
think that we should move the discussion to ietf-interest or similar
bigger alias to discuss what community support for a given work in IETF
really means I will be happy to do that.
Best regards,
R.
Hi,
Actually Xiaohu reminded me what triggered my work in this area.
As we all know Routing Research Group has met for number of years and as
an outcome produced recommendation document which clearly states that
before transitioning to loc/id split architecture operational community
can use some form of aggregation where prefix growth would exceed
forwarding capacity of deployed devices.
Work on VA and simple-va provides a technology to address that precise
recommendation.
When IETF issues a RFC this becomes a recommendation for the community
and not for WG it has been develop under. There is no reason for another
last call of the set of documents in GROW WG. If there is one we need to
include much broader community including mid and small operators which
do not attend IETF as they will mostly benefit from this functionality.
Many of them provided vendor who supports this enhancement in production
os their requirements. Some of them are in native language and not in
english.
I recommend proceeding with the documents review by IESG. Otherwise I
think we need to collect broader discussion when an AD is authorized to
stop progressing useful and deployed technology. Our main goal in the
IETF should be focused to serve operators to provide tools for them to
realize new services. It should not be forum to reflect given vendor's
internal preferences.
Best regards,
R.
Folks,
One week ago, I polled the WG in an attempt to gage interest in
draft-ietf-grow-simple. The following responses were posted:
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02228.html -
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02229.html
While these two messages are not sufficient evidence of wide
community interest in this draft, they do suggest that there may be
interest out there. So, I will ask the chairs to conduct another WG
last call on this draft. In the last call announcement, please ask
folks who want the draft to be published to speak up. Silence will be
interpreted as disinterest.
Until the WG last call is complete, I will transition the draft to
the AD-WATCHING state.
Ron
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
