The basic idea is that the alternative distribution protocol is not the
existing IGPs. As such and assuming there is community interest in
addressing the problem, I did not want to prejudge whether the work
would be in rtgwg, in lsr, or in a new working group. Les is correct
that once there is such a protocol, the decision of what data uses which
one seems appropriate to LSR. And if the community decides that it is
interested, and that the work belongs in LSR, then I am happy to work on
the offloading protocol in LSR. But it is not for me to tell the
routing community which working group should own a piece of new protocol
work.
So, rephrasing the above, it seems to me that judging whether there is
interest, and deciding where the work belongs, under the current
structures, to be appropriate for rtgwg.
If the rtgwg and lsr chairs tell me I misjudged, I am happy to discuss
wherever it belongs.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/12/2026 4:57 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
My confusion comes from the point that draft talks about IGPs and
proper WG is LSR WG to discuss this.
I was asking since you apparently want to proceed with it in RTGWG
that more then IGPs will be covered. And that actually may not be a
bad idea as offloading some stuff from IGP and BGP may land into
pub-sub common message bus for distribution.
Thx,
r.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:54 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
I am making no comment about BGP by the title. I am drafting some
text to better explain the relationship with BGP.
Regarding the title, it is draft-halpern-rtgwg because problem
statement dispatch for routing, as I understand it, is an RTGWG
function. I didn't add -igp- to the filename because I dislike
creating long draft names. For me, the draft filename never gives
the whole story, so I didn't worry about being completely precise
in the filename.
Yorus,
Joel
On 10/12/2026 4:51 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Joel,
Can you explain why the title of the draft is not consistent with
its filename ?
Specifically you are talking about IGP ... but the title says
rtgwg ?
Are you trying to say that "The IGP is not a Dump Truck" but BGP
is ?
Thx,
R.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:06 PM Joel Halpern
<[email protected]> wrote:
Calling your attention to a draft I just submitted, with some
co-authors.
It is a problem statement draft, outlining an approach to
improving IGP robustness by moving quasi-stable information
not need for routing convergence out of the IGP. The basic
question is whether the community is interesting in improving
this behavior. If so, we can decide whether it goes to LSR
or gets a new working group.
Thank you,
Joel
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:
draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 07:02:04 -0700
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Internet-Draft draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt is
now available.
Title: The IGP is not a Dump Truck
Authors: Joel Halpern
Andrew Alston
Name: draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt
Pages: 8
Dates: 2026-09-24
Abstract:
This document explores addressing the problem of using an IGP to
carry arbitrary information, often referred to using the
phrase "the
IGP is not a dump truck". It describes the kinds of information
carried in an IGP and proposes an approach to changing the
system.
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck/
There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.html
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
